Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ISLE OF WIGHT BILL

INTERNATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK BILL (By Order)

ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL
(By Order)

HYTHE MARINA VILLAGE (SOUTHAMPTON)
WAVESCREEN BILL (By Order)

NEW SOUTHGATE CEMETERY
AND CREMATORIUM LIMITED BILL (By Order)

Orders read for consideration of Lords amendments.

To be considered on Thursday 19 October.

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[23 May]—That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 19 October.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords]
(By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read. To be further considered on Thursday 19 October.

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
(By Order)

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]
(By Order)

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL
[Lords] (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL
(CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL (By Order)

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 19 October.

HAYLE HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)

QUEEN MARY AND WEST FIELD COLLEGE BILL [Lords]
(By Order)

As amended, considered.

Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of third reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 19 October.

LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL (By Order)

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL
[Lords] (By Order)

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 19 October.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Pesticides

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the Government are taking to ensure the safety of pesticides used in agriculture.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): Under legislation introduced by this Government pesticides are banned for use unless approved on the basis of independent scientific advice. Once approved they may be used only as specified in their approval.

Mr. Thurnham: First, I welcome my hon. Friend to his new office. Will he begin his new responsibilities by ordering a review of the way in which pesticides are approved—both new and older products, some of which may be taken for granted—so that the public may have full confidence in the approval system, knowing that the best scientific evidence is used?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend will be aware that it is only three years since we introduced the new statutory arrangements, which are among the best in the world for approving pesticides. We have a continual review system, and if there is any problem, the pesticides concerned are called in for review. The independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides is recognised as offering the best scientific advice in the world.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that I have made several representations to the Ministry over the past year or so on behalf of people in Sheffield and in South Yorkshire generally, who are worried about a possible linkage between their water supplies—25 per cent. of which are drawn from the Derwent—and the use of pesticides, as well as nitrates, on the Vale of York? Their anxieties have heightened during the summer. Will the Minister comment?

Mr. Maclean: I shall certainly look into the hon. Gentleman's point. Responsibility for the quality of the water supply rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. However, I shall be


delighted to consider the matter to establish whether there is any agricultural involvement—in which case I may be able to assist the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Scotland, where raspberries are grown substantially to serve the needs of Europe, the Government have shown great understanding in their handling of the dinoseb problem? The costs involved have been phased over a year, and the Government are also giving grubbing-out assistance, so that fresh varieties other than Glen Clova can be planted. All that shows how sensibly the Government tackled the problems.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We are delighted to assist, where we can, by ensuring that the safest possible use is made of pesticides while at the same time not damaging or destroying the agricultural industry, which has the prime responsibility for ensuring that the nation has good, safe and wholesome food at a reasonable price.

Dr. David Clark: On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome and congratulate the new Ministers and I hope that they have a rewarding time at the Dispatch Box. We shall make sure that they work hard at making certain that the British public is protected.
Concern has been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House about the review of old pesticides. Some pesticides are as much as 40 years old, yet it may be another 10 years before they are reviewed. Is the Minister aware that no new and, one would hope, safe pesticides have been approved under the new scheme because of a lack of resources? Will he examine the problem to ensure that public health and the environment are better protected than they are at present?

Mr. Maclean: I thank the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for their kind words.
I am, of course, aware of concern that pesticides are not being reviewed quickly enough, but I do not accept its validity. I have no evidence to suggest that the Department is being tardy in its attitude to the review. We are considering the matter of resources and recruiting scientists to continue the work of the review. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about any pesticides, and if he draws his concern to our attention, we shall pull the pesticides concerned forward for instant review. Pesticides are reviewed under an ongoing programme, and we are determined to ensure that there is no tardiness.

Animals (Drugs)

Mr. Stern: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that purchasers of animal-based products are able to obtain information on the drugs given to the animals.

Mr. Maclean: Such a step is not practicable. The Government believe that the way to protect the consumer is to ensure that no residues are present in food at levels that are harmful to health.

Mr. Stern: I join my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) in welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister to his new post.
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is reason for concern among people in the Bristol area, for example, when they hear that a preparation of which they previously knew nothing, such as BST—bovine somatotropin—is being fed to cows on an experimental basis? It is not that they believe that an active attempt being made to do them harm but that they are not told that such experiments are taking place. How can my hon. Friend reassure my constituents and those of other right hon. and hon. Members?

Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words.
There is no question of testing drugs in the manner that my hon. Friend suggests, and then giving the milk products of those cows to the public. Bovine somatotropin is not a drug but a naturally occurring hormone. I suggest that my hon. Friend tells his constituents that, since time began, every cow has had BST naturally occurring in its system. Synthetic BST is no different from the naturally occurring hormone, and it would be inappropriate to label milk products, because such labelling could be misleading. BST is a natural hormone.

Mr. Livsey: I, too, congratulate the agriculture team on its appointment. Will the Minister comment on the ban that has been imposed by the EC as a result of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Britain when the mainland continent of Europe cannot test for or identify the disease?

Mr. Maclean: The only comment that I would make is that that ban applies only to animals born before 18 July 1988. We continually keep the matter under review and we are happy to comply with EEC standards on all aspects of animal health and safety.

Dr. David Clark: Has the Minister had time to study the minutes of his veterinary products committee? If so, will he confirm that the April and May meetings of that committee received an application for a product licence for BST by Elanco which it has not granted on grounds of health doubts for humans and animals?

Mr. Maclean: No, I have not had a chance in the past 24 hours to study that minute among the other documents that I have been reading. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall study it and write to him with a detailed reply.

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Mr. Marland: To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food when he last met the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; and what matters were discussed.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I have met the RSPB on a number of occasions in the past and I look forward with great pleasure to renewing my acquaintance.

Mr. Marland: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend back to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food where we look forward to him carrying on the good work of his predecessor.
My right hon. Friend may be aware that, while studying alternative land uses, the Select Committee on Agriculture recently visited the flow countries, where we met representatives of the RSPB. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that at his next meeting with the RSPB he will


encourage it to have a slightly broader vision than did its representatives whom we met in Caithness, who seemed to be 100 per cent. opposed to any further development of those vast tracts of land, whether for forestry or agriculture, because they felt that it would disturb a few rare species of birds?

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. I suppose that we would both agree that an organisation set up to protect birds would tend to go on about birds. However, I agree that we must take into account a range of matters when we make decisions. I much welcome the work done by the RSPB on behalf of birds, but in the end we have to achieve a balance between the perfectly proper demands that such conservation makes upon us and the demands for jobs and for preserving the countryside. There are often different tensions, even between conservation organisations. In the end, the Government must hold the ring and make the decisions, and I agree that they must be made impartially.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State accept that when he next meets the RSPB one issue that it will be particularly worried about is the state of Britain's hedgerows? Does he accept that, if hedgerows are to be stockproof and to provide a good habitat for birds, they need, in agricultural terms, to have a good bottom and to be laid regularly? Does he accept that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be doing far more to encourage farmers to maintain their hedges in a stockproof state rather than relying on strands of barbed wire to join up trees in outgrown hedges?

Mr. Gummer: I have considerable sympathy with the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's question. I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when we stopped paying people to grub up hedges. I was pleased when we started to pay people to lay and look after them properly and I shall keep that support under review. Hedgerows are of great importance and I agree that we need proper hedgerows, not ones with strips of barbed wire, wherever that can be avoided.

Mr. Michael Brown: First, may I very warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his elevation to the Cabinet. I ask him to pass on to his Parliamentary Secretaries, who will ably support him, my warmest congratulations. He has a superb team and I am sure that agriculture will benefit from this marvellous team. I also ask my right hon. Friend to remember that the RSPB has welcomed the farm woodlands scheme, which it says will be a lifeline for birds.

Mr. Gummer: It has certainly been extremely supportive of the farm woodlands scheme. I found the regular meetings that I initiated with the RSPB when I was Minister of State to be valuable and I hope that we shall continue those meetings.

Mr. Ron Davies: Has the RSPB raised with the Minister the Government's failure to protect British wildlife from deliberate and illegal killing? Will the Minister confirm that in the past eight years, there have been about 200 cases of deliberate killing of raptors by the illegal use of pesticides and that for those 200 incidents there were only four prosecutions? Is he aware that the position has been made considerably worse this year because in the

grouse-rearing areas of England, all the nesting pairs of hen harriers, a bird that merits special protection under the EC birds directive, have been deliberately killed? Will the Minister forcefully condemn the actions of those responsible? Will he remind the landowners concerned of their legal responsibility and will he review the actions of his Ministry to ensure that the law is adequately and rigorously enforced?

Mr. Gummer: The RSPB has not so far drawn that to my attention, but I am happy to discuss the matter with it when we meet. I am also happy to condemn forcefully anyone who breaks the law, especially in the areas of sensitivity about which the hon. Gentleman spoke. I cannot, of course, necessarily support all that the hon. Gentleman said, but I suggest to him that the Government's actions on pesticides generally and some of the actions that I hope to announce later today will comfort him very much. I am also happy to examine again the problem to which he refers, and if further action is needed to toughen up the reactions of the Ministry, I shall be happy to take it.

Conifers

Mr. David Davis: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the effect of his announcement after the 1988 Budget that approval for large-scale conifer planting in the uplands of England would not normally be given; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gummer: It is too early to say. However, in the four years before the announcement, less than 650 hectares of land was planted with conifers in the whole of England. Some two thirds of that planting was in upland areas.

Mr. Davis: May I join in congratulating my right hon. Friend on his return to the Dispatch box at an appropriately elevated level. May I point out to him that the Council for the Protection of Rural England and I, as somebody who walks in the beautiful uplands of Britain, welcome the Government's decision? Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the proposal of the Countryside Commission to plant large areas of forest in urban fringe areas? That will provide amenities and an environmentally sensitive mix of trees for those who live in towns and inner villages.

Mr. Gummer: I agree that the Countryside Commission's action is to be welcomed. It began to discuss this about a year ago. It has developed the proposal, arid the first forest will begin to be planted soon. This is a major innovation which shows that Britain is leading the world in many areas of conservation. The scheme will bring back to parts of the country that have missed out on the countryside for a long time some of the amenities that many of us are lucky enough to experience near at hand where we live.

Mr. Morley: I welcome the new appointments to the Agriculture Front Bench, but I shall judge Ministers on their actions before I comment on their countryside policy. I hope that they will make changes. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Forestry Commission on its new landscape design proposals, which are a response to criticism levelled at forestry in the uplands for some years? Does the Minister agree that an area such as the flow


country is important not only because of the rare birds who live there—it contains some of the most important species in Europe—but because it is a habitat that is unique in western Europe? Planting trees on that land destroys the peat layer for ever. There is no going back once land has been ploughed up and planted on. Does the Minister agree that steps need to be taken to protect precious areas which are of international importance?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to tempt me into areas looked after by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am happy to support what he said about the Forestry Commission's decisions on landscape, although I do not think that they were a response to criticism, as the hon. Gentleman rather negatively suggested. Those decisions show how much the Forestry Commission has been doing to develop its plans, and we should welcome not only the new plans but the new chairman who will take over at the end of September.

Eggs

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many consignments of imported eggs have been impounded by his Department over the last 12 months.

Mr. Maclean: In the 12 months to May 1989, 20,812 boxes of 360 eggs were inspected for compliance with egg marketing standards regulations. None was impounded.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister confirm that egg imports into the United Kingdom trebled between January and April this year, largely because of housewives' continuing lack of confidence in the quality of British eggs? In view of the continuing problem of salmonella in eggs, what action do he and his Department intend to take to improve quality control of egg imports?

Mr. Maclean: I do not have the figures for egg imports with me, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that egg exports have increased in the past few months because foreign countries have great confidence in the rigorous quality standards in Britain following the salmonella outbreaks. The standards that we impose for salmonella testing at the ports are among the most rigorous in the world and everyone in this country should have perfect confidence that we can detect any salmonella coming into the country through eggs. One consignment was detected and we took the matter up with our opposite numbers in the EEC.

Mrs. Gorman: While my hon. Friend is on the learning curve of his new post, will he ask his officials to confirm that an egg is an anaerobic capsule designed by nature to keep out germs and that unless the eggshell is cracked or the semi-permeable membrane disturbed an egg cannot contain enough of any kind of bacteria to make one ill? All this stuff and nonsense worrying people about eggs comes under the heading of "poppycockus hystericus" and the public should be told, after my hon. Friend's officials have confirmed it, that a freshly cooked egg is perfectly healthy, whether it is English or foreign.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes her points in he own inimitable way. Although I have not had a briefing on this matter yet, I understand that eggs are porous and that it is not true to suggest that eggshells are completely

impermeable to contamination. Part of the problem with the salmonella outbreak is that invasive salmonella involves transovarian transmission, whereby the disease is transmitted from the bird through the ovary into the egg.

Mr. Alton: At what levels do egg consumption and production now stand, following the complaints made by the hon. Gentleman's former ministerial colleague, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), about the possibility of salmonella poisoning? Does he agree that what is needed is a Minister who is seen to protect the interests of consumers, who continue to lack confidence in the food available in our supermarkets?

Mr. Maclean: I understand that egg consumption is up to more than 80 per cent. of its former level. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said that he would judge us by our actions, and I assure the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr Alton) that he will be happy to reach the conclusion that our actions will be in the best interests of consumers in this country.

Channel Cod Quota

Mr. Harris: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Channel cod quota.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): We have pressed hard for an increase in the Channel cod total allowable catch for this year. The Commission's recent proposal, based on scientific advice, for a small increase from 23,900 tonnes to 24,600 tonnes has just been confirmed. We have also secured agreement that the Community's scientific and technical committee should carry out a further review of the total allowable catch.

Mr. Harris: I congratulate my hon. Friend and former colleague in the European Parliament on his new appointment. With regard to Channel cod, does my hon. Friend appreciate that although any increase in the quota is helpful, there is nevertheless deep disappointment among our fishermen that the increase is so small? Will he bring his skills and knowledge of Europe into play to continue the battle for a larger quota of Channel cod and has he any proposals for better management of the quota?

Mr. Curry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words and reminiscences. I appreciate that fishermen are bound to be disappointed. In response to my hon. Friend's question about the management of the quota, I am considering dividing the quota for Channel cod between vessels of more than 10 m in length and those below 10 m. That would apply immediately if I take that decision. I am also aware of the pressure to extend licensing to vessels below 10 m and I am actively considering—my hon. Friend will be aware of the significance of the adverts—whether to extend licensing from vessels of 10 m registered length to vessels of 10 m overall length, which would bring the most blatant of the so-called rule beaters under control, and I am treating a decision on those questions as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Tony Banks: At Environment Question Time yesterday we had a discussion about the amount of raw sewage being dumped in the seas around our shores. As a


lover of cod and chips, may I ask what the Prime Minister has done to ensure that cod are not landed as nothing more than reprocessed turds?

Mr. Curry: While the hon. Gentleman was discussing that yesterday, I was mugging up on fish. We are vigilant about the quality of the fish that is landed and we are determined to try to increase the cod quota so that British housewives can enjoy more cod and that all cod that is landed, either from British boats or from imports, should be subject to a levy which will help to promote that quite excellent fish.

Mr. Hill: May I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on his promotion to his new position on the Government Front Bench. I am sure that he will do an extremely good job. My hon. Friend will realise that the theme that was jokingly introduced by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is quite serious. My hon. Friend and the Ministry are responsible for licensing procedures in respect of the Channel areas where sewage or sewage sludge is dumped. Will he keep a close eye on the situation and monitor what is happening as the Southern Fisheries Association is extremely concerned about the almost unbridled issuing of licences to the Southern water authority?

Mr. Curry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. I understand that the licensing process is carefully controlled, but I give my hon. Friend a clear guarantee that we shall reinforce the controls and I shall be particularly vigilant.

Sea Fish Industry Authority

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Curry: I am looking forward to meeting the chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority at an early and mutually convenient time.

Mr. Cohen: Given the authority's role in fish farming research, should it not be looking into pollution research? Will the Minister take steps to stop the misuse of chemicals and pesticides in fish farms and ban the use of Nuvan 500 EC?

Mr. Curry: I am certainly not prepared to guarantee that I will ban a product until I have had a chance to investigate the case.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister does not know what it is.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that I do not know what it is, and I confirm his impression. However, I will take steps to find out very quickly. If the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) would like to forward any particular evidence to me, I will examine it as soon as possible.

Mr. Macdonald: I add my personal welcome to the Minister with his new responsibilities and I hope that he will be a wee bit more sympathetic than his predecessor was to some of our concerns. When he next meets the chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, will he discuss with him, and with the Department of Agriculture

and Fisheries for Scotland, the need closely to monitor nephrops stocks in the Minch fisheries off the north-west coast of Scotland, where there is increasing pressure due to east coast fishermen coming over as a result of the quota cuts that they have suffered? Will the Minister undertake to monitor prawn stocks off the west coast and introduce quotas if necessary?

Mr. Curry: I will certainly undertake that that should be on the agenda, and I will certainly discuss it with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Dr. Godman: I, too, welcome the new Ministers to their posts. I only hope that we can maintain the civilised relationship that we experienced with their predecessors. In that regard, I offer my compliments in public to the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) for the many affable courtesies that he showed to me during his tenure of office.
When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, will he discuss with that gentleman the urgent need to introduce a sensible decommissioning scheme? Does he agree that many middle-aged fishermen around the British coastline would happily and willingly tie up their middle-aged or elderly vessels for the last time if such a scheme were in operation? Is it not the case that, with regard to European Community obligations vis-a-vis the multi-annual guidance programme, the United Kingdom fishing fleet has to shed some 600 to 800 fishing vessels? How will that be brought about in the absence of a sensible decommissioning scheme?

Mr. Curry: I echo the hon. Gentleman's remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson), who I thought was an excellent Minister and responsible for many personal kindnesses to hon. Members.
Decommissioning is a somewhat less easy matter than the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest. It is one of the options that I am now reviewing. The hon. Gentleman is right that the multi-annual guidance programme sets Community targets to apply by 1991. He will be aware, however, that since that target was set two years ago there has been a significant expansion in the fishing fleet. That has been done with public money. I am therefore bound to pay careful attention to whether I wish to decommission with public money a fleet that was built up with public money. However, it is one of the matters that I shall certainly discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I am aware of the importance of the issue.

Dioxin

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the maximum permitted concentration of dioxin in common foods; and what is the dioxin content of mother's milk.

Mr. Maclean: There are no maximum permitted levels set for the dioxin content of foods. Work carried out at my Ministry's food science laboratory shows the dioxin content of mothers' milk to be approximately 1 nanogram—that is, one thousand millionth of a gram—per kilogram.

Mr. Williams: Given that dioxin has been responsible for more than 4,000 children in the United States being born with severe congenital abnormalities due to Vietnam veterans having been exposed to agent orange, given the toxicity of dioxin, and given that dioxin enters the human body mainly through our food, what do the Government intend to do to tackle the problem of dioxin in food and in the environment?

Mr. Maclean: There can be no comparison between people sprayed with dioxin in Vietnam and dioxin levels in mothers' milk. We had a survey carried out in seven European countries and in three other countries which showed that dioxin levels were all comparable and very low. The reference level is 1 picogram, which is one millionth millionth of a gramme. The hon. Gentleman must be careful not to suggest that there is a serious problem. I accept entirely, and repeat, the advice of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Health that breast milk is still the safest and best means of feeding a baby. There is no problem with dioxin.

Mr. Boswell: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench and I welcome his last response. Will he confirm that instead of spreading scare stories the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) should be paying tribute to the skill of the scientists in their ability to detect such minuscule quantities, to the strength of the regulatory system and to our readiness to publish this information which shows, contrary to the opinions of the Opposition, that there is no danger in breast milk either in Europe or in the Third world?

Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. He is right. We have some of the best scientists in the world. As I said to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), we have carried out studies in Europe. It is wrong to suggest that there is a serious problem with dioxin in breast milk when we are talking of levels of one thousand millionth or one million millionth of a gramme.

Slaughter of Animals

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to introduce measures to ameliorate the suffering of animals during slaughter; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Curry: On 20 June the Government issued, for public consultation, proposals for additional important welfare measures.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why have only 18 of the 100 recommendations made by the Farm Animal Welfare Council been implemented, as they related to examples of extreme cruelty in Britain's slaughterhouses? Will FMC in Wiltshire be prosecuted as a journalist on The Sunday Times was a witness to cruelty in that slaughterhouse? What action is to be taken on the evidence of cruelty in many of Britain's slaughterhouses?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman asked why only a certain number of recommendations have been implemented. He will appreciate that certain measures can be implemented by means of existing primary legislation, but others require new primary legislation. We are about to conclude the consultation period—in fact, it ends on the first day of next month—on the recommendations relative

to religious slaughter. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the Government's stance on that. Once the consultation period is over, we shall lay regulations quickly.
The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Department would like to introduce an animal welfare Bill. That, of course, depends on parliamentary time. If we were to win such time, we would be requiring local authorities to—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question and he is getting a specific answer. We shall require local authorities to appoint a person specifically responsible for animal welfare. We intend to make the rules of practice mandatory and not voluntary. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must not object because I managed to guess his supplementary. We intend to extend protection to deer.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Minister and the new agriculture team, which I am sure will be extremely successful. May I ask my hon. Friend to remind the Opposition that when I put forward an animal welfare Bill embodying recommendations by the Farm Animal Welfare Council with regard to the slaughter of deer, the legislation was blocked by Opposition Members?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend confirms the problem. We need new primary legislation. If we achieve that, the measures that she sought to introduce will be included.

Irradiated Food

Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to bring forward his proposals for the comprehensive labelling of foodstuffs treated with irradiation.

Mr. MacLean: The Government intend that labelling of irradiated foodstuffs is full and clear. I will shortly be putting out for public consultation appropriate amendments to the Food Labelling Regulations.

Mr. Lloyd: How useful is labelling in the absence of any proper diagnostic testing?

Mr. Maclean: Labelling is essential so that consumers can make a choice. If the hon. Gentleman is in the House later this afternoon, when our White Paper is published and a statement is made, he will find that we shall be taking tough powers in the new food Bill which will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits to deal with all aspects of food irradiation and to establish a rigorous and toughly controlled licensing system which will satisfy the public demand.

Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Mr. Gill: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to revisit the Shropshire hills environmentally sensitive area.

Mr. Maclean: I attach a great deal of importance to getting out to the environmentally sensitive areas and seeing things for myself. I hope that the Shropshire hills will be one of the ESAs that I have the opportunity to visit.

Mr. Gill: I apologise for the fact that the wording of my question has been somewhat overtaken by events. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend will be most welcome in


England's second largest environmentally sensitive area, where he will see for himself how the interests of agriculture and the environment are well reconciled. He will be able to learn at first hand how welcome last month's announcement of the increase in the suckler cow premium is, and how well the more recent announcement of no upper limit on sheep headage payments is being received.

Mr. Maclean: Environmentally sensitive areas have been tremendously successful and have been one of the best initiatives in the countryside. I look forward to other areas experiencing the same success as Shropshire, for which 208 applications were received in respect of 14,800 hectares of land. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to show me round and introduce me to those who have been successful there.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Miss Emma Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Miss Nicholson: Has my right hon. Friend had time in her busy day to note the return to work of Tilbury's grain and container divisions and, yesterday, of 12,500 National Union of Railwaymen staff? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an immense ratification of our policy of non-intervention in industrial matters? Will she look most closely at the release of British Rail from public ownership?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend and welcome the return of so many railwaymen and dockers to work. They realise, clearly, that serving the customer is the best way of serving their industries and their self-interest. I also agree with my hon. Friend that if there are disputes they are a matter for negotiation between management and workers in the industry and not for visits and meetings at No. 10. It is for management to solve them within the framework of rules and regulations that they have been given. I agree with my hon. Friend that privatisation in general is far better than nationalisation. As she knows, I did not want the two mixed up in this dispute. We shall, of course, look at privatisation in the future.

Mr. Hattersley: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes up a lot of time.

Mr. Hattersley: Which quality does the Prime Minister think she displayed to most advantage during last week's Cabinet reshuffle—loyalty, honesty or sensitivity?

The Prime Minister: That combination of qualities succeeded in getting into an excellent Cabinet men of great experience in a wide range of Departments and a terrific team of younger Ministers—[Interruption.]—supported

by a first-class team of younger Ministers at lower levels, whom we saw performing so excellently at the Dispatch Box earlier today.

Mr. Hattersley: If the Prime Minister feels so warmly about her senior colleagues, why have she and her press secretary spent three days intentionally humiliating the Leader of the House?

The Prime Minister: That is absolute nonsense. We have the most excellent Cabinet for the future. I understand why the right hon. Gentleman is rattled—he knows that it is a winning Cabinet.

Mr. Hattersley: As the months go by, the right hon. Lady will come to learn that if she sacrifices the trust even of her senior colleagues, she will certainly sacrifice the trust of the nation. Does she realise that the Government are palpably and obviously a shambles and that this week's Cabinet reshuffle, which was intended to set them back on their feet, has merely left them as they began—in total disarray?

The Prime Minister: I shall have to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman by telling him that we had an excellent Cabinet meeting this morning. I remind him that in 10 years this Government have transformed Britain from the shambles that he and his Government left.

Mr. French: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. French: Is my right hon. Friend aware that of the two people who led the campaign to prevent Gloucester council from transferring its housing to a housing association, to the benefit of all tenants, one went on to incite people to break the law by not paying the community charge and both have been rewarded for their efforts by being given well-paid jobs funded by the Labour city council? Will my right hon. Friend resolutely condemn such examples of cynical disrespect for ratepayers and misallocation of ratepayers' funds?

The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. That also shows cynical disrespect for the rule of law passed by this House which, if democracy means anything, must be obeyed. The community charge—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to listen to the Prime Minister. This is the last opportunity that we shall have for some time.

The Prime Minister: The community charge will increase the accountability of councils to their electors. We understand why the Labour party does not like it. It will show up the extravagance of Labour councils with their ratepayers' money, and the economy of Conservative councils which look after the money raised from community charge payers.

Mr. Ashdown: Did not President Mitterrand say in public today what the right hon. Lady's ex-Foreign Secretary had been telling her in private for some time—that Britain is in danger of being left out and left behind in Europe? Is it not the case that the right hon. and learned


Gentleman's pro-European views cost him his job but the right hon. Lady's anti-European views will cost Britain its future?

The Prime Minister: That is nonsense. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are ahead of France in implementing matters that have been agreed. We are ahead in having free capital movements. I look forward to France following our lead. We are ahead in having abolished foreign exchange controls. I look forward to France doing the same. We are ahead in having abolished many subsidies to industry. At the Madrid summit, France and not Britain was isolated. Nothing, least of all the right hon. Gentleman, will persuade me to surrender the sovereignty of this House to the European Parliament.

Mr. Adley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Adley: Did not yesterday's rail strike show that London and other cities are incapable of absorbing yet more road traffic, with the inexorable rise in pollution and congestion that it brings? During the recess will my right hon. Friend re-read the central London rail study produced by the Department of Transport, which calls urgently for the construction of new underground railway lines in London? Does my right hon. Friend recognise this urgent need and will she please discuss it with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Transport. Finally, does she recognise that the only way to build those lines is to increase public investment?

The Prime Minister: I know my hon. Friend's keen interest in these matters. During the recess I shall be reading a number of heavy books. I confess that the one to which he referred had not occurred to me, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be reading the central and east London rail studies. I accept the importance of those studies. Decisions on the findings will be taken this autumn in the context of the Government's consideration of the competing claims for all forms of public expenditure. I remind my hon. Friend that investment in London railways is already at record levels and is set to increase, quite apart from implementing the new lines proposed. Investment in London railways is running at about £650 million in the current year.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us share her concern that at a time when inflation is higher than we would wish it to be, it is important that wage demands are curbed? Will she agree that those who are leading industries and are giving themselves often vulgar increases in salaries have a duty to lead from the front and to curb their own excesses so that they can give responsible leadership in relation to the claims of those lower down the scale?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend and I agree that higher performance and higher productivity at all levels merit higher rewards. The point of having higher productivity is to enable one to achieve lower unit costs,

which enables one to give higher wages because of higher effort. That is why we have profit-sharing schemes and performance-related pay. I agree with my hon. Friend that when the priority is to control costs and get down inflation, business leaders have a particular responsibility to lead by example, and I hope that in future they will continue to do so.

Mr. Barron: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Barron: Has the Prime Minister instructed her new Secretary of State for the Environment to give further help to besieged Conservative Back Benchers with an increase in the poll tax cushion?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we had looked at the safety net provisions under which resources go from one area to another, and my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had indeed varied them to ensure that some of the gainers got their gains while those who were losers under that area safety net system did not have to bear more than some £25 per payer. That has eased the position a great deal. My right hon. Friend also gave extra money to those who had low rateable values and to those in ILEA. That has eased the position, but I have not the slightest shadow of doubt that my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for the Environment will consider the matter again.

Mr. Franks: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Franks: When considering future legislation, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the case of Barrow Borough Transport, which in the two years of its existence before going into liquidation lost £1½ million, which included a £½ million loan from Barrow council which was illegal and ultra vires? Will she consider introducing legislation to extend the powers of district auditors and speed up the process by which miscreants are brought to book?

The Prime Minister: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, but in the Local Government Act 1988 we have already significantly strengthened auditors' powers, enabling them to act pre-emptively in certain circumstances. We believe that when that is working sufficiently, it should be enough. At present we have no plans to strengthen auditors' powers further unless there are circumstances which clearly require further amendment.

Mr. McCartney: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McCartney: Will the Prime Minister take action in relation to Westminster city council, and in particular Lady Porter, whose actions are bringing the whole of local government into disrepute, and the activities of the


Conservative party in using public funds to try to return a discredited council at next year's local government elections?

The Prime Minister: Westminster city council responsible for its own affairs—[Interruption.] and I am sure that it will deal with them.

Business of the House

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the deputy Prime Minister tell us the business for the first week after the summer recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): rose——

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a busy day ahead of us. I call the Leader of the House.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The business for the first week after the summer adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY 17 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on the Griffiths report and community care on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 18 OCTOBER/THURSDAY 19 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on a Government motion to approve the Defence Estimates 1989 (Cm 675)
FRIDAY 20 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on top-up loans for students on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Dobson: May I thank the deputy Prime Minister for his statement and welcome him to his new job? I fear that it bears an uncanny resemblance to a Government training scheme, with him dogsbodying around for an ungrateful boss but with no—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a day for Back Benchers. Let us get on with it.

Mr. Dobson: —with the right hon. and learned Gentleman dogsbodying around for an ungrateful boss, but with no guarantee of a proper job at the end of it.
May I thank him also for so promptly honouring the undertakings of his predecessor and for arranging debates in Government time on the Government's response to the Griffiths proposals on care in the community and for the debate on the proposals to replace student grants with student loans? We would, of course, have preferred both those debates to be on substantive motions, and we especially object to the student loans debate being held on a Friday.
May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman during the recess—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House to settle down. I repeat that this is a day for Back Benchers, but these interruptions are taking up a lot of time and I am anxious to call as many hon. Members as possible in the next debate.

Mr. Dobson: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give some thought during the recess to establishing a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? The people of Scotland and their elected representatives feel cheated at the failure to establish this, the only Select Committee that has not been established as required under the Standing Orders of the House. As there is now a new Back Bencher for Scotland, the Government may find it easier to find Tories to take their places on that Committee.
Finally, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the much postponed debate on Members'

pensions and on the possibility of severance payments for Ministers will be arranged during the spill-over period? I am sure that he will agree that the House should have an opportunity to vote on the severance pay proposals before the next reshuffle.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I acknowledge the benevolent part of the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks and I shall leave the rest on one side by expressing my gratitude for his observations about the debates that we have been able to arrange on the Griffiths report and on top-up loans. I note his point about the arrangements for debates. At present, they are designed for the general convenience of the House. If he wishes to have any alternatives considered, that can be done through the usual channels.
The hon. Gentleman also raised a topic that is not unfamiliar to the House—a Scottish Affairs Select Committee. One regrets the inability to form a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I think that, in the light of whatever factors he cares to mention, if anyone has any new proposals to make on that, they too can be considered through the usual channels.
It has also proved difficult to arrange a debate on parliamentary pensions and severance payments. I hope to be able to find time for that shortly after the House returns in October.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: My right hon. and learned Friend is aware, from his highly distinguished service at the Foreign Office, that the House of Commons is remiss at debating foreign affairs. Will he give his attention to that matter, in view of the enormous changes that are taking place in the world and our inability to consider them?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am clearly aware of the importance of the matter my hon. Friend has raised. It is important to acknowledge that my predecessor recently arranged for two debates on foreign affairs, so I cannot rush in, ambitiously, in the near future.

Mr. James Wallace: I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the distinguished office he has now assumed. Those of us who have been in the House on Thursdays for business questions have heard the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) quite properly ask for for debates on the Griffiths report and student top-up loans. I am pleased that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has managed to deliver them so quickly. If he repeats that performance over many Thursdays, he will be an especially popular Leader of the House.
In view of his legal background, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange a debate on the White Paper on legal services, as the House has never had an opportunity to comment on the Government's proposals? In view of his experiences this week, will he arrange a debate on homelessness and those threatened with homelessness?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I do not feel impelled by any experiences this week to consider his last suggestion. Obviously it can be looked at. I am grateful for his appreciation of the announcement about debates on the Griffiths report and top-up loans. Legal services are an important issue and I am prepared to consider what can be done about a debate on them.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend in his new role in the House. Does he consider it appropriate to have a debate on the European monetary system and monetary relationships with the European Economic Community, in view of the recent comments of President Mitterrand of France?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that the House normally feels impelled to have a debate simply because of the observations of a Head of State of a friendly nation, which I have of course, noted with interest. My hon. Friend will recall that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently tabled a full paper on that subject for consideration by a Committee in the House. That is the best way to handle it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the deputy Prime Minister capitalise on the very warm reception he has just received from the House by trying to be a reforming Leader of the House? Will he start with the private Bill procedure, which has developed into a shambles in recent years? Will he notice the large number of Bills that are now being blocked? Will he take note of the excellent report of the special Procedure Select Committee on reforming private business, as that needs to be implemented as soon as possible, even if it involves having a "high noon" with the people who have just appointed him to his new post?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know of the hon. Gentleman's close interest in the important but extremely complicated subject of private Bill procedure; I also know of the reports which have been considered recently, but which I have not yet had time to study fully. I shall certainly endeavour to do so during the recess, and to consider the matter in the light of the hon. Gentlemen's observations.

Mr. David Howell: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that it was hoped in some quarters that a Government statement might be made about Hong Kong and the so-called flexible package before the rising of the House. It is quite understandable that that has not proved possible, but will my right hon. and learned Friend convey to our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that, should he feel during the recess that circumstances in Hong Kong require him to introduce a new policy, he should not feel constrained from doing so, but will operate in accordance with Hong Kong's needs and interests rather than waiting until Parliament resumes?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend will gather from the new arrangements made for ministerial duties in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that my right hon. Friend the new Foreign Secretary manifestly attaches importance to the subject of Hong Kong. I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend's proposal to his attention, however, so that he can keep it well in mind.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Leader of the House will be aware that, for some of this week, 10 Downing street appears to have been operating as a rather less than efficient estate agency. In view of that inefficiency, can we expect the announcement, soon after the recess, of a debate on the privatisation of the various stately homes handled by the Prime Minister?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that most, if not all, of the stately homes in which

he takes such a close interest are not in state ownership, but are owned by trusts established for the purposes for which they are being used.

Mr. James Kilfedder: May I congratulate the Leader of the House on his appointment to a position that will bring him into close touch with all Members of Parliament? May I also congratulate the Prime Minister, who has been the subject of some cheap and hurtful gibes, on the appointment of the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Would it be possible to debate the political situation in Northern Ireland immediately after the recess to see whether we can make new political progress?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. Of course I understand his continuing interest in the topic that he has raised; the House has had several recent opportunities to discuss Northern Irish affairs in some detail, but I shall certainly keep his suggestion in mind.

Dr. David Owen: Will the Leader of the House ensure that next year's defence debates follow soon after the publication of the defence White Paper? For three years, there has been a pause of five to six months, to which I believe many hon. Members on both sides of the House object.
May I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his unfailing courtesy and distinguished service as Foreign Secretary over the past six years?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those last remarks. If what he has described has happened in each of the three preceding years there may well have been good reasons for it, but I shall certainly take account of what he has said.

Mr. Keith Raffan: Let me join other hon. Members in welcoming my right hon. and learned Friend warmly to his new and important post. In view of the major outbreak of salmonella poisoning in my constituency and in other parts of the north-west, and the statement on food safety that we are about to hear, can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that an early debate on food safety and the Government's proposals will be possible after the summer recess?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's interest in that topic, particularly in the light of recent serious problems in his constituency. I shall look carefully at his suggestion after studying the consequences of his afternoon's statement.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: In the short time for which he has occupied his new position, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman had an opportunity to read early-day motion 1245, concerning the sacking of Tilbury docks shop stewards?
[That this House is outraged by the brutal attack upon the rights of free trade unionists by the arbitrary decision of the port employers at Tilbury Docks to summarily dismiss only the 16 shop stewards in a clear and provocative attempt to intimidate trade unionists acting in full compliance with the Government's onerous laws.]
Does he not realise that there should have been a debate on the matter—even, perhaps, at this late hour—particularly as the redundancy payments scheme is being used in such a flagrantly anti-trade union and


anti-democratic manner? Is it not a disgrace that shop stewards should be sacked in this way and that other ordinary members of the dock unions should then have been placed in an almost impossible position because, if they had stayed out, the dockers who have been sacked would get no compensation whatever? It is the worst possible use of money in an anti-trade union way, and I hope that that will be taken on board by the Government.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman was first elected to this House from Merseyside on the same day as I was, and I have known of his interest in the future of the dock industry since that time. However, I confess that I do not think that the advice that he has given his fellow workers in the industry has served them to the best advantage. The Government have been obliged to introduce legislation which was recently enacted in respect of the dock labour scheme. The shop stewards who were dismissed were among a larger group made redundant by their employers and, despite risking dismissal for breach of contract by going on strike, they have received special compensation of up to £35,000 in redundancy.

Sir Peter Emery: In welcoming my right hon. and learned Friend to his new tasks, may I ask him whether, as deputy Prime Minister, he will look at all aspects and give proper guidance about Government policy, perhaps in a fuller way than he has been able to do in the past? If he will not move to adventurous experiment on procedure, may I urge him at least to work for a consolidated advance to modernise our procedure in the House? Lastly, the Procedure Committee consists of many senior men who spend many hours trying to bring forward concepts for modernisation. Could we have early debates on the Committee's reports and not have them deferred as has happened in the past?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can tell my hon. Friend in response to his first observation that I shall of course endeavour to discharge the duties of my office to the best of my ability. My hon. Friend has a considerable and quite proper interest in the procedural reform of the House. I shall study all the reports that have so far been produced and look forward to those that will be produced in the years to come. I shall try to reach a balanced conclusion, which is what I think my hon. Friend is urging upon us.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the deputy Prime Minister aware that the reception that he received upon reading out the Government business for when we come back was probably the greatest accolade that any Tory Minister has received in the 19 years that I have been in the House? Is he also aware that the Prime Minister cut a very lonely and beleagured figure next to him? In view of that——

Mr. Speaker: Order. What has this to do with next week's business?

Mr. Skinner: In view of that, will the Leader of the House be more magnanimous to the dockers and bear in mind that, like him, many of them have lost their jobs? However, unlike him, they did not get another job at the same rate of pay. Dockers have got the sack, and unlike the Leader of the House will have to scramble to get back to work and go on the dole. Will he re-examine his answer

to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and try to find some method to stop the employers in the docks treating dockers like cattle?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The future of the docks industry and the dock workers in it has recently been very fully considered by the House. The arrangements now being administered were approved by the House a short time ago.

Mr. Julian Critchley: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he enjoys the respect, affection and admiration of the whole House? He may have missed an item in the newspapers last week about what happened to the former Secretary of State for the Environment in a field in Hampshire last Saturday. He went up in smoke. I hasten to add that I was not responsible for his martyrdom, but I am sure that he is aware of the anxiety, indeed the anger and perhaps apprehension, felt by all my constituents about the prospect of Foxley Wood, a new town of 5,500 houses, being built in my constituency. Will he please try to find time for a debate as soon as we return on the whole business of planning and rebuilding within the south-east?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It took my hon. Friend an uncharacteristically long time to disclose the nature of his inquiry. I am sure that the House will have followed him with interest. Now that he has arrived there, I can agree that the matter of planning in many places, not least in the south-east of England, raises a large number of complex conflicts of interest, in my constituency as well as his. Clearly, this will need to be debated and considered in the house on more than one occasion.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman to his new position. However, can we have an assurance that the translation of the former Secretary of State for Defence to the Back Benches does not ensure that he pursues, perhaps rightfully, a business interest to the detriment of his parliamentary interest, because it would not look well in Scotland if Tory Back Benchers refused to serve on a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, and preferred to pursue interests outside the House? I know of the Leader of the House's interest in these matters, so could we have an assurance that he will make a statement on them when we return?
In view of the translation of the previous Leader of the House to the Department of Energy, can we know when the South of Scotland electricity board and British Coal will sign a contract to ensure the continued employment of miners in Fife and central Scotland?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall draw the last question of the two raised by the hon. Member to those who know more about it than I do. As to his first question, it would not be proper for me to comment on any personal implications of what he has said. The House has its own rules for considering such matters.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): My right hon. and learned Friend will be well aware that not long ago there was a debate on the Clergy (Ordination) Measure, which took place early in the morning, when there were virtually 100 hon. Members present. Should the measure be resubmitted, will he ensure that it is debated at a better time of the day?
In more general terms, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider giving the House the opportunity to debate the affairs of the Church of England? These tend to be debated in a curmudgeonly spirit despite the Church of England's successes—for example, in launching an urban fund—which show that it is a lively and central institution, and that it would be a good subject on which to have a debate.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I join my hon. Friend in his admiration for many of the works and activities of the established Church. I cannot join him in such close familiarity with the legislative procedures recently affecting it, but I shall look into the matter in the light of his question.

Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House recap what has happened over the past four Thursdays, when Welsh Members pressed his predecessor to arrange a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee so that the Members can discuss the National Health Service in Wales? Having reflected on the replies that have been given, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be more positive by ensuring that we have debates on Wales? In the first week that we are back after the recess, will the right hon. Gentleman allow the House to debate the Children Bill? Many people will be looking forward to the implementation of the Bill, and it is high time that grandparents, divorced people and others were protected by the Government through this Bill being enacted. Will he arrange an early debate on the Bill?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: At this stage, I cannot usefully add anything to what has been said by my right hon. Friend the previous Leader of the House on the hon. Gentleman's first point. I know that this is a matter that has caused a good deal of anxiety, and it will no doubt be considered again when the House returns. As to the Children Bill, that is manifestly important legislation that will need to be considered again before long.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: My right and learned Friend has made a great start by announcing a week's business without one of these pointless, frustrating and silly debates after 10 o'clock on European directives. Could we have a day's debate on what our future policy on the EEC should be, bearing in mind that the Government seem rightly to be becoming more and more frustrated at the bureaucratic Socialist nonsense coming from Brussels, but on the other hand seem powerless to do anything about it, apart from complaining, because of the problems of the Single European Act? Is it not high time that, for the sake of democracy, we have a full day's debate on where we stand on the EEC?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I fear that I am unable to take the enthusiasm that I had for the beginning of my hon. Friend's question to its conclusion. The Single European Act has been discussed on many occasions and I am sure that the House will find further opportunities to consider the general matter which my hon. Friend has raised.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the Leader of the House agree that, whenever there is a major tragedy, everyone welcomes the efforts of the three emergency services? Will he make time for a debate so that we can ascertain why the members of the ambulance staff are singled out for different treatment from the staff of the

other services when it comes to wages? Is he aware that officers of the ambulance staff union are balloting members on industrial action? Does he realise that the rest of the country believes that the Government are using patients in the most cynical way by deliberately treating the ambulance service differently from the police and the fire service?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Lady knows that negotiations in respect of the ambulance service are matters for the ambulance Whitley council. The trade union side rejected the management side's improved offer when the negotiations adjourned on Tuesday. As she said, the officers of the trade union side declared their intention to ballot members on their willingness to take industrial action. The outcome of that will not be known until September. I hope that the trade unions will take up the management side's offer of a joint review of the operations of the salaried structure rather than threaten to put patients at risk.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. and learned Friend, who richly deserves both those prefixes and both the offices that he now holds, arrange an early debate on London's traffic, which is causing increasing concern?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that there will be an opportunity for discussing that topic during the debates that will take place tomorrow.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the first special report of the EC Legislation Committee, which was published this week, which incorporates correspondence between myself and the former Leader of the House on changes for scrutiny of EC legislation? The proposed changes are welcome, but is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that they do not go far enough? Does he recall that the important report from Mr. Delors on economic and monetary union, which was recommended for debate by two Select Committees, has yet to be debated? Will he arrange a debate early on our return, bearing in mind the fact that decisions have been made by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that bear upon that issue? Does he think that that is a good advertisement for parliamentary democracy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's close and practical interest in these matters. I am familiar with the special report to which he refers, but I confess that I have not yet re-examined it with the attention that I shall no doubt give it. He will know that the matters which interest him are currently being considered by the Procedure Committee. We shall look forward to its recommendations on the topic.
The decisions so far taken in the European Council in respect of the Delors report have not related to any specific legislative proposals. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put a full explanatory memorandum before the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service and has given extensive evidence to that body on that topic. That is an important manifestation of the interest of the House in this subject.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: In view of the discussion about the pay increases of senior


directors, will my right hon. and learned Friend, with all the authority of a very successful former Chancellor of the Exchequer, arrange for a debate in which he may be able to remind us all, as he did in the past, that such increases do not cause inflation but that Governments, and Governments alone, do so?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have always appreciated the straightforward nature of my hon. Friend's views on the causation of inflation. It must be said that one other factor that plays a part in generating inflationary pressures is expectation. Expectations cannot be influenced in a sensible way that will enable unemployment to fall at the same time that inflation is tackled, if people in positions of senior management award themselves grossly over-inflated pay increases.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Has the Leader of the House caught sight of statutory instrument No. 247 on credit unions in Northern Ireland, the object of which is to increase certain facilities to members of such organisations? While that concession is welcome, the House should surely debate at an early date the refusal of the Registrar General of Friendly Societies to extend the same concessions to credit unions in Scotland and elsewhere in mainland Britain. Should not the registrar general be reprimanded for his insensitive and foolishly inconsistent behaviour?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I confess that I have not yet devoted a great deal of my time to studying the particular topic that the hon. Gentleman mentions. On that ill-informed basis, it would not be right for me to rebuke the official concerned. However, now that my attention has been drawn to the issue, I shall see whether it is a proper matter for debate.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I add my good wishes to those that have been expressed to my right hon. and learned Friend.
Would it be possible to arrange as early as possible a debate on freedom of expression and speech in connection with the Salman Rushdie case, which raises important questions as to the nature of our public society and citizenship? The House has not yet given a clear lead as to the priorities of public society in this country and of British nationality.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's interest in the Salman Rushdie case, which caused me considerable concern in my previous office. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made a number of important speeches on that topic, and it rates suficiently important to be worth considering as the subject of a future debate.

Mr. Alan Meale: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Committee stage of the Football Spectators Bill reached its conclusion today. Will he guarantee that its Report stage will not be debated on the Floor of this House at least until the outcome of Lord Justice Taylor's interim report has been announced?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Although I must stop short of an undertaking in respect of a question of which I have only

just had notice from the hon. Gentleman, I assure him that the Government appreciate the importance of Mr. Justice Taylor's prospective report.

Sir Anthony Grant: Although my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given evidence before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, in view of industry's need to enjoy currency stability above all things, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be a good idea to debate the question of this country joining the exchange rate mechanism—particularly as many people both outside and inside the Government apparently believe that we should join it sooner rather than later?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate that that matter is one of optimum interest and of great importance. Clearly, it may be appropriate at some stage for the House to have an opportunity to debate it.

Mr. Frank Cook: I congratulate the deputy Prime Minister on eluding the tricky knitting of the Madame Defarges of Downing street, and welcome the qualities that he brings to this House—which include great stability and sound experience.
I welcome also the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement of intent to study before the first week of business after the recess the numerous reports of the Select Committee on Procedure. Will he consider also how he might best bring his good offices to bear in putting a stop to the Government's increasing practice of leaking information to the press before making statements in this House, and of treating the House with disdain and contempt? Will he ponder the fact that only by good examples being set at ministerial level—and by that I mean starting at prime ministerial level—may ordinary Back-Bench Members be expected to behave properly and to conduct themselves with decorum?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall not compete with the hon. Gentleman in drawing parallels from experiences of the French revolution, but I can assure him that the Government and all its members are conscious of the need to pay due respect to the House, and that leaking and the other disreputable habits to which he refers are not something for which the Government are properly to blame.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it was traditionally the case that the request for a statement about the business for the following week came from the Leader of the Opposition, a practice which in recent years seems to have fallen into disuse? Like many doctors, the Leader of the Opposition is availing himself of a deputising service. As the Leader of the Opposition is such an important plank in our strategy for re-election at the next general election, and as Parliament will, in all probability, shortly be televised, is it not necessary to have him here as often as possible?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall not join my hon. Friend in offering advice to the Leader of the Opposition, although he may well need a great deal of it. I am sure that the House will want to consider a number of the implications of the early prospect of televising our proceedings.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on low pay, particularly in the National Health Service and British


Rail? Is he aware that I have two pay slips from British Rail workers in Workington, one of whom supports a wife and three children and the other a wife and two children, and both show a take-home pay of £88 a week? How can people live on such money? What am I to tell British Rail workers when they come to the Labour club in Workington on Saturday to discuss their pay levels with me?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are a number of arrangements within the structure of our social services, of which family credit is one, that may relate to such problems. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a more general and far-reaching debate, it is open to the Opposition to suggest that.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend please try, through the usual channels, to secure the appointment of a shadow Leader of the House worthy of facing him in the months ahead as the disparity of talent is matched only by that between the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Neither my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister nor I need be preoccupied with that problem.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on local authorities' provision of permanent sites for gipsies and travellers? Is he aware of the latest daft decision of Conservative-controlled Bradford council to spend £1,260 a week of ratepayers' money for private security guards to watch a field and to report if gipsies and travellers return to camp on it? If that same protection were provided for the other 27 sites in the district, it would cost ratepayers £1·8 million a year. Will the Leader of the House urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to refuse to designate the existing two sites in Bradford until a third permanent site is provided, proper provision is made by local neighbouring authorities and the House has had an opportunity to debate the issue?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The details that the hon. Gentleman gives of the particular problem with which he is so familiar underline my impression that that area of legislation and practice is one of extreme difficulty and complexity, which many of us will have come across in our constituencies. All that I can say at this stage is that he should encourage his right hon. and hon. Friends to press for the matter to be debated more widely.

Mr. James Hill: My right hon. and learned Friend has dealt in an exemplary way with the institutions of Europe—I am particularly thinking of the Council of Europe, the Western European Union and the North Atlantic Alliance—when he has so often been Chairman of the Council of Ministers, and the co-operation that we have all had from him should not be forgotten.
In asking for a debate when we resume, I would go to the most important debate that the Conservative party is facing—the pollution of our environment. We must have a strong policy—certainly in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—on the dumping of sewage and sludge in the waters around our coast. I am sure that such a debate would be well attended.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. No hon. Member doubts the enormous and fast-increasing importance of the environmental problems arising from an expanding population, growing economic activity and shrinking space. It is one of the consequences of the high rate of growth and prosperity in the past 10 years. Nobody is more conscious of the importance of these matters than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Alun Michael: Will the Leader of the House take cognisance of the many representations, as reflected by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), for a proper debate on the Health Service in Wales? Will he note that there is disappointment that there was no statement on the Health Service in Wales today and that we are still waiting for the documents promised by the Secretary of State for Wales at the Dispatch Box on 1 March? Can he add his weight to that of his predecessor in calling for those matters to be put right? Can he persuade the Secretary of State for Wales that he has not been reshuffled to a Department of empty packaging? Will he make plenty of time in the next Session for a debate on all the matters on which content is outstanding in Wales, including those in early-day motion 879,
[That this House calls on the Government to accept the verdict of the electors of the Vale of Glamorgan who rejected the Government's plans to undermine the National Health Service; calls on the Government to accept that most people want more money to be spent on the Health Service and now realise that Britain is spending a smaller proportion of national income on health than most other advanced countries; notes the widespread anger that has been caused by the introduction of eyesight and dental test charges and the proposition that doctors should be turned into accountants; and consequently calls on the Government to withdraw the Health Service White Paper and the nine consultative documents published for England.]
early-day motion 1183,
[That this House calls on the Secretary of State for Wales to make public his plans for the future of the Health Service in Wales in the light of the Health Service Review; renews its plea to him to publish the documents promised to the House on 1st March and to honour his promise to the House that, before the White Paper on Health is implemented there will be plenty of time for dialogue and suggestions; regrets that documents for Wales were not published at the same time as those published for England; expresses the fear that, despite careful attempts to appear more reasonable than the Secretary of State for Health the Secretary of State for Wales intends to promote policies which will be equally damaging to the Health Service in Wales as those being pursued for England; reminds him that the Prime Minister's approach to the Health Service has been decisively rejected by the voters of South Glamorgan and North Wales and by the people of Wales as a whole; stresses that cups of tea and soft words are no substitute for clear proposals and open debate on the future of the best-loved public service in Wales; and calls on the Secretary of State to come clean on his intentions.]
early-day motion 1001,
[That this House notes that on 1st March, the Secretary of State for Wales told the House that before the White Paper on Health was implemented there would be plenty of time for dialogue and suggestions and expressed the specific


hope that the White Paper would be debated in the Welsh Grand Committee when he would be interested to hear the views of honourable Members; notes that he has taken specific steps to avoid any such debate when the Welsh Grand Committee meets on 28th June; and, while welcoming the opportunity to contrast the very real needs of Valleys communities with the failure of the so-called Valleys Initiative, nevertheless deplores the unwillingness of the Secretary of State to either explain or debate his intentions regarding the future of the health service in Wales.]
and early-day motion 1182,
[That this House notes the decision of the Secretary of State for Wales, after 10 months deliberation, to give heavily-qualified approval to the strategic plan put forward by the South Glamorgan Health Authority; emphasises the implied rejection of the proposal to close Sully Hospital; remarks that authoritative local sources had already predicted that Sully Hospital would be reprieved; now calls on the Health Authority to issue an immediate statement guaranteeing the long-term future of Sully Hospital on the basis of its present services plus an expanded service of therapeutic and remedial work as well as providing the site for the neighbourhood hospital to serve the eastern part of the Vale of Glamorgan; and notes that Sully Hospital is ideally suited to fill these roles and that such a decision will win applause from specialists, doctors, nurses and all other employees as well as from patients and the public who have campaigned for the future of Sully Hospital as well as fitting in with the Secretary of State's findings and providing the best way forward for the Health Service in South Glamorgan.]
which are on health; on those that are on local services in Wales, which are early-day motion 1246,
[That this House notes that the July statement on Welsh local government finance failed to provide local authorities in South Glamorgan with adequate information about the intentions of the Secretary of State for Wales or to offer adequate guidance to local authorities to assist in their financial planning; notes that the introduction of a unified business rate, far from bringing benefits, will involve a sharp increase in costs to businesses in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan; notes that the Government intends to pretend that this is now a part of national taxation; notes that while more money will be raised through a unified business rate in South Glamorgan, less money will be returned to the local authorities on the Government's present policy; further notes that the introduction of poll tax at the same time provides a regressive tax which hurts most those who earn least as well as introducing great uncertainty; doubts whether the Government's safety-netted figure of £195 for Cardiff is an adequate calculation, as it ignores the costs of inflation, evasion and poll tax administration; and calls on the Government to provide more information and more money for the local authorities, residents and businesses of South Glamorgan, Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan.]
early-day motion 1244,
[That this House notes that the purpose of the July Statement on Welsh local government finance each year is to give information about the intentions of the Secretary of State for Wales, to offer some guidance to local authorities to assist in their financial planning, and to allow informed debate to take place; believes that the 1989 statement needs to be particularly clear and informative as it comes at a time

of upheaval; notes with alarm that this year's statement proved anecdotal and uninformative; calls on the Secretary of State for Wales to recognise that his selection of £175 as the standard assessment figure for Wales is meaningless because the figure ignores the costs of inflation, evasion and poll tax administration and as the figure is based on his own calculations and assumptions, the basis of which he has not published; further calls on him to recognise that he depends on a Welsh Office view of savings to be made by local authorities without indicating how these savings are to be achieved; points out that his expenditure assumption fails to take into account true increases in inflation during the year; points out that local authorities need a proper basis on which to plan their finances; and appeals to the Secretary of State to celebrate his relief at surviving in office by issuing a genuine statement on local government finances which will give full and clear information to honourable Members, local authorities and the general public.]
and early-day motion 1232,
[That this House deplores the Government's plans to introduce the poll tax in Wales, despite its overwhelming rejection by the Welsh people; condemns the wholly inadequate rebate system; notes that the poorest communities in Wales will suffer, and regrets that the opportunity to give detailed information on the effects of the tax on Wales, to honourable Members on the floor of the House was not taken by the Government.]
and on those on the many other Government failures in Wales, which are early-day motion 1033,
[That this House notes the distinction drawn by the Secretary of State for Wales and his predecessor between the Valleys Initiative which was launched by one of them and the Valleys Programme which was launched by the other; is saddened to see the public conflict between two former Cabinet colleagues about who was responsible for what; regrets the refusal of the Secretary of State for Wales to answer simple questions asking for a list of projects and costs funded, respectively, under the Initiative and the Programme; finds the excuse of cost unconvincing when the Prime Minister was willing to fill 34 columns of Hansard and waste £4,600 of taxpayers' money to answer a question seeking a list of her so-called achievements since 1979 and when her Government has done so much damage to Valleys communities during the same period; and is forced to conclude that the Secretary of State has no real answers and to concur with the judgement of Lord Crickhowell that the Valleys Programme contains nothing new.]
early-day motion 1034,
[That this House notes with alarm and regret the refusal of the Secretary of State for the Environment to accept his share of responsibility for the plight of elderly people who face the effects of cold in winter; calls on him and the Secretary of State for Wales to offer adequate funds for home insulation work to make up for the decimation of numbers employed on insulation work as a result of changes in Government training schemes and thus restore hope that such suffering will be ended.]
early-day motion 1057,
[That this House notes the proposals for a management buy-out of the West Wales Region of the Welsh Development Agency and the subsequent denial by the Welsh Development Agency in Cardiff; notes that the suspended officers at the Welsh Development Agency's Carmarthen office first approached senior officers at the Welsh Development Agency last year and undertook six months of numerous meetings and discussions on the


proposal and asks the Welsh Development Agency whether it acquiesced or encouraged the proposals and further asks if similar proposals are being considered or being developed in other regional offices of the Agency; notes the Secretary of State for Wales's denial, both in the Welsh Affairs Select Committee and in reply to a written Question from the honourable Member for Carmarthen, of plans to privatise the Welsh Development Agency in whole or in part; regrets that the Secretary of State allowed the discussions on the management buy-out to reach such an advanced stage; asks the Prime Minister to set up an external inquiry into the origin of the proposal, including the involvement of the Welsh Development Agency centrally and the Secretary of State in discussions; and reaffirms the total commitment of this House to a publicly accountable Welsh Development Agency playing a vital role in economic development in Wales.]
early-day motion 1091,
[That this House is appalled and concerned by the substantial and widening gap between the rich and the poor in England and Wales confirmed in the recently published Office of Population Censuses and Surveys studies; notes that the highest death rates are in Wales and the North; and believes that the Government should urgently take action to alleviate unemployment, poverty and poor housing all of which are established as major contributors to mortality rates in these areas.]
early-day motion 1224,
[That this House deplores the failure of the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement about the inspector's report following the inquiry held at Bristol in February and March 1989 to consider objections to the Government's proposal to double toll charges on the Severn Bridge despite the fact that he has been sitting on the report for a number of weeks; and believes that the Government proposal to implement the increases in September 1989 should not take effect and that there should be a full debate on the matter in the House of Commons.]
and others?

Mr. Tony Banks: That is half the rain forest gone.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am afraid that the immense talents of my Parliamentary Private Secretary were not quite able to match the speed reading technique adopted by the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate the continuing interest in the prospect of a discussion on the particular aspects of the Health Service in Wales. I have seen the previous exchanges about it and I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said diminishes the importance of the fact that the Government are spending record amounts on the National Health Service, which is treating more patients than ever before. That will be taken into account in Wales, as in the rest of the kingdom.

Mr. John Bowis: If my right hon. and learned Friend had come with me this morning to Battersea dogs' home, he would have heard a better class of barking than we have heard from the Opposition. More importantly, he would also have been able to witness the launch of a voluntary dog registration scheme which involves the painless implanting of a chip to enable dogs and their owners to be restored to each other. Can that

subject be debated at an early date so that we can consider how Parliament might build on that voluntary experiment?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I share my hon. Friend's interest in this topic. In my constituency, there is also a home for animals abandoned by their owners, which is run by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. However, I have not yet been driven to the conclusion that my hon. Friend's suggestion is an urgent topic for consideration on the Floor of the House.

Mr. David Winnick: In a non-controversial way, may I ask the new Leader of the House whether arrangements can be made for an early debate on the power and patronage of the Prime Minister? Will he bear in mind that when Conservative activists were being interviewed on a radio broadcast this morning, some of them said that the Prime Minister was acting more like a dictator than anyone else they knew who had occupied that office? I hope that such a debate can be held and in it, will it be possible for the Home Secretary to participate, as well as the Leader of the House, and for them to give us their views?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Gentleman, unusually, finds it possible to raise such interesting topics in what he calls a spirit of non-controversiality, perhaps he can invite the leaders of his party to consider initiating a debate on that matter in Opposition time.

Mr. Tony Marlow: In view of the priority that the Prime Minister earlier today quite rightly attaches to the sovereignty of this House in European issues, could my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that we have these debates in more prime time than we had on Tuesday night, when important issues were being debated at 1 am? It is one thing to be rolled over by the Commission in policy areas where it was never dreamt that it had any competence; it is another thing for these things to be finessed through in the early hours of the morning when there are hardly any hon. Members here and there is no press here and the great British public are quite unlikely to know what is being done on their behalf in a totally undemocratic way.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has raised a point that has been raised many times on both sides of the House. The matter is now being considered by the Procedure Committee under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's question will be properly considered.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 935 dealing with the level of pensions?
[That this House condemns the statement made by the Secretary of State for Social Security that the elderly population as a rule is now healthier and more independent than ever before; believes that such statements are designed to disguise the reality that many pensioners are living below the poverty line as a direct result of Government policy to abolish the earnings link under the Social Security Act 1980 and that the Government has further eroded the value of pensions by making pensioners responsible for 20 per cent. of their rates; and calls on the Secretary of State to take


immediate action to uprate the state retirement pension to the level it would have been had the earnings link not been abolished.]
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange for an early debate on the matter before we go through our annual weeping and wailing about the plight of pensioners during the winter? The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware of the great hardship that is being suffered by thousands of pensioners in Britain. Does he agree that the House would be justified in having an early debate on the matter?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman refers to a topic that the House has discussed on many occasions and to which it will no doubt return. It is worth impressing on the hon. Gentleman, however, that during the seven years from 1979 to 1986, pensioners' total average net income increased in real terms by 23 per cent. That is a very important achievement which should be taken into account.

Dr. Alan Glyn: In view of the Home Secretary's recent statement on the Hetherington report on war crimes, will the Leader of the House use his influence to get the matter cleared up as rapidly as possible in the interest of justice?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand that one of the matters referred to in the report is the need for the question to be considered expeditiously, and I shall bear that in mind in considering how soon the House should have a debate.

Mr. Tony Banks: From the warm reception that the Leader of the House received from Conservative Members this afternoon, it is clear that he has not passed his political sell-by date. I hope that the Prime Minister noted that reception, because if anyone should be feeling embarrassed, isolated and awkward this afternoon, it is her.
Although business questions are not quite as good as foreign jollies, I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will enjoy the occasion. We ask fairly futile questions; he gives us responses which are no doubt even more futile; and the world goes on much the same.
May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1248 dealing with congratulations to President Arup Moi, who I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows?
[That this house extends its warmest congratulations to President Daniel Arap Moi of Kenya for the significant and courageous decision to destroy 2,400 elephant tusks confiscated from poachers; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to compensate the Kenyan Government for the $3 million forgone through the destruction of the ivory; commends the Kenyan example to other countries and in particular Hong Kong; and recommends that the EEC establishes a fund sufficient to compensate all those African countries willing to destroy ivory stocks.]
The early-day motion congratulates Kenya on incinerating $3 million-worth of ivory taken from ivory poachers.
May we please have an early debate on animal conservation—in particular on elephants, whales and sharks?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: One of the lessons that I am quickly learning in this job is that I ought to concentrate my reply on the main part of the question put to me. I have studied

the early-day motion to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I share his respect for the actions taken by President Moi. The whole House feels a deep sense of concern for the future of wildlife—particularly elephants, but also the other species that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I am sure that the House will find opportunities of considering the matter further.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: So that the taxpayer can get value for his money, will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange a debate on the Short money and the way in which the Opposition parties are funded? Is he aware that the Labour party has produced a report condemning Labour MPs for junketing abroad while the House is sitting? Should he not arrange for a copy of that report to be given to the Leader of the Opposition?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The report to which my hon. Friend referred sounds like a document of extreme interest and I shall ensure that it is studied as widely as possible.

Mr. Harry Cohen: May we have a debate on the reshuffle? Most people think that it is minor, not Major, and that we have the same old pack of awful policies. They cannot see Howe it does any credit to the Tories and with all the traffic congestion, it is still a case of no Parkin', son. As the Prime Minister has double-crossed and over-Hurd, is not the best policy for the electorate to place a single cross on a ballot paper for their Labour candidate.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman makes a case that he may seek to sell to the electorate. However, there is no need to force a debate on the House.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider offering to the Opposition a half-day debate if they undertake to use it to explain to the House their policies for the reform of domestic rates? Is he aware that the debate they initiated earlier in the week was a total farce as they were unable to explain to the House how they intend to reform the domestic rating system? They said—to use their words—that their policy still needs "sophisticating". We hope that they will use the summer recess to "sophisticate" their policy for reform of the domestic rates. Until they manage to do so, it does not lie in their mouth to criticise our proposals for the community charge.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend's point is of the utmost importance. I doubt the Opposition's ability to achieve any sophistication, in that respect or any other. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take every opportunity of driving home to the electorate through the recess the massively higher burden that would be involved in any of the Opposition's alternatives.

Mr. Harry Barnes: During the recess, will the Leader of the House study the state of the franchise? In 75 constituencies over the past year, it has declined by over 1,000. The Prime Minister puts that down, possibly, to the postal strike of 1988. But there was no postal strike in Scotland between the 1987 and 1988 register. Some hon. Members think that there should be a debate on the impact of the poll tax on the electoral register. It seems to be fiddling the franchise in Finchley and a number of other constituencies.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: One of the factors that the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind is that, in the context of his question, there is no sense in referring to the community charge under the misleading title of poll tax.

Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend to his new position. May we have an early debate on the duties and responsibilities of hon. Members, including Select Committees? If so, could we not look forward to the opportunity of explaining that Conservative Members welcome the opportunity to work for the Prime Minister in whatever job we do, whether as Back Benchers or Ministers? We do not expect former Secretaries of State for Defence, whether they are from Leeds or Ayr, to serve on Select Committees if they do not wish to.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend makes two important points which deserve to be supported by acclamation.

Mr. Michael Jack: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that hon. Members can see television programmes from the existing land-based channels. During the recess, will he give thought to providing the terrestrial facility because satellite television may bring to us programmes which will expose the inadequacies of the Opposition and their policies, and I would not like to miss the opportunity of seeing them?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall try to take advantage of my longer sojourns in this country to follow my hon. Friend's example.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of early-day motion 1237 entitled "The Parliamentary Labour Party and the NUR"?
[That this House notes that no Labour honourable Member including his Deputy and the entire Shadow Cabinet and Parliamentary Labour Party have publicly supported the Leader of the Opposition in his common-sense remark to the leadership of the National Union of Railwaymen.]
Does he think that we should have a debate on the motion, which reminds the House that not a single Labour Member—including the shadow Secretary of State for Transport and the deputy leader of the party—has publicly supported the Leader of the Opposition's common-sense remark to the leadership of the NUR? Does he think that it would be a good wheeze suddenly to arrange a debate for either today or tomorrow so that the Leader of the Opposition has to return from wherever he has gone for his early holiday?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that we need a debate to follow through the implications of what my hon. Friend has said. We all welcome the observations attributed to the Leader of the Opposition in urging a sense of reality upon the NUR. We must all hope that Opposition Members will take an early opportunity universally and unanimously to follow their leader's example and urge the NUR to follow the advice of many in its own leadership and bring the strikes to a halt as soon as possible.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: How nice it will be for those of us who have long admired my right hon. and learned Friend's achievements—not least his greatest achievement in removing exchange controls—to have him back in the House at a time when we will be discussing the fiscal relationship between our country and Europe. Will he find time early in the new Session to debate alternative monetary structures so that we can consider the free market alternatives to EMS, the ecu and central banking? Those alternatives include the liberalisation of legal tender so that European currencies can be exchanged freely within European countries and the denationalisation of central banks so that we can develop a free market in currencies as an alternative to EMS, the ecu and so on.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend wishes a pretty comprehensive agenda on the House. I do not think that I can follow her quite as far down the road that she has taken us this afternoon. However, my hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I achieved a very fair conclusion at the Madrid summit to the effect that the suggestions made in the Delors report are by no means the only way of approaching the matter.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Government Back Benchers achieved a rare but nevertheless welcome victory in the vote following the ten-minute Bill procedure yesterday? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those engaged in providing essential public services should not strike either on a full-time or a part-time basis while tribunals or arbitration procedures are available to them? Is it not time that we had a debate on that issue and time that we protected the public during industrial disputes?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the importance of being ready continually to examine and re-examine the best way y of trying to protect the public from the undoubtedly massive inconvenience of strikes and industrial disruptions to essential services.

Food Safety

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): The Government have today published a White Paper "Food Safety—Protecting the Consumer". Copies have been placed in the Vote Office and in the Libraries of both Houses.
Consumers expect that the food they buy should be safe—and they are perfectly right to do so. All those who provide food—whether it be the farmer, the manufacturer, the caterer or the retailer—have a clear interest in the consumer's confidence. There is therefore no conflict between responsible producers of food and the Government's determination to set high—indeed, the highest practicable—standards of consumer protection. Those standards must be comprehensive, independent, up to date, and properly explained.
Already there exist wide-ranging laws which apply at every stage in the food chain. These are based, and action is taken, on the best available expertise and advice. The White Paper shows how comprehensive is the network of advisory committees on which the Government rely for independent, objective advice. Those committees, as well as advising Government, publish their reports and their findings.
There continue to be rapid developments and changes in food technology, in the range of products marketed, and also in consumer preferences. Great benefits are gained from this progress in terms of choice, convenience and value for money, but it means that our food legislation must keep pace so that consumers continue to be safeguarded. Therefore, after consultation with all interests, such as manufacturers and retailers, including enforcement and consumer bodies, the Government now intend to introduce legislative changes at the earliest possible opportunity.
The White Paper sets out the main changes proposed. These will include tighter controls on unfit food and food which is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded. These controls will apply to food before it is put on sale and allow suspect food to be withheld while investigations take place. The legislation will provide powers to adapt the law to cover new technical developments such as food irradiation, to ensure that the process is properly controlled. Powers will be strengthened to control contaminants and residues, including those which might arise from bad practices on farms or in manufacture. Ministers will have powers to make emergency control orders to deal with potentially serious problems, such as accidental contamination. Ministers will also be able to set training requirements for those who handle food commercially, building on existing good practice and thereby increasing the numbers of people trained by the food industry, local authorities and others.
To be effective, the rules and standards laid down must be applied. Most enforcement is carried out by local authorities. In a previous job, I found their work in that respect to be of particular importance. They have long experience and have developed considerable expertise in food safety, and the Government intend that that expertise should continue to be used in full. The registration of all food premises, for which the proposed new legislation will provide, will help local authorities to identify premises. Also, new enforcement measures will strengthen the

existing system so that, for example, local authorities will be able to take action to have whole batches of unfit food condemned. At the moment, a local authority has power only to condemn the particular part of the food that has been found to be dangerous.
No matter how comprehensive and rigorous are the controls on food production and marketing, consumers themselves have a part to play. They have the responsibility for good kitchen hygiene, proper cooking, and reading and following instructions on the care, storage and cooking of food.
The proposals in the White Paper demonstrate the Government's commitment to food safety. We are always ready to consider adaptation when needed. We believe that our proposed legislation will provide the right framework for protecting consumers now and in the future.

Dr. David Clark: I had hoped that the advent of a new Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would signal a new and safer approach to food in Britain. Sadly, having heard the Minister's statement and, more importantly, read his White Paper, my hopes have been dashed. The Minister's statement and his White Paper contain a mere seven proposals—no more—and they reek of complacency. The White Paper, which was heralded in advance by multitudinous press briefings as a new approach to food hygiene, has turned out to be little more than media hype. Very little in the Minister's proposals would have helped to prevent recent food poisoning incidents.
Opposition Members welcome the proposals for training staff in handling food, but will the requirements be statutory? That question is absolutely vital. Similarly, we welcome the proposal for the registration of commercial food premises, but those powers are useless unless local authorities have the resources with which to carry out that function. Plainly, at the moment they do not have the resources, either financially or in terms of personnel.
In the statement today and in the White Paper, the Minister says nothing about meat products. It has been suggested that the proposed legislation will follow the line of the American legislation and will not cover meat and meat products. Will the Minister enlighten us about the position?
Apart from those measures, little in the Bill will help to combat the contamination of our food. There is clearly a commitment to force irradiation of food on to the people of Britain, but that will do little to tackle the real problem. There is no need for irradiation if food is good and wholesome. We need irradiation only when food is not good and wholesome.
The Minister's statement and the White Paper are the result of five years' consultation. I doubt whether in the history of government such a long consultation has produced so little. The very first line in the first chapter of the White Paper states:
The variety and quality of our food have never been better.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right."] Despite the shouts of Conservative Members, that statement is not only grossly irresponsible but highly inaccurate. It is also an insult to the many thousands of people who have suffered from food poisoning. Where have Conservative Members been for the past few years? Do they not know that food poisoning incidents have trebled in the seven years up to


1988? Have they forgotten the salmonella and eggs saga last autumn? Have they forgotten the listeria in cheese——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise to the hon. Member on the Front bench for interrupting him but he must address his question to the Minister and not to Back Benchers. He is seeking answers to a ministerial statement.

Dr. Clark: By "they", I meant the Government collectively. I was not intending to address Back Benchers. I will, however, now address my remarks to the Minister. As the White Paper is under the name of the previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and various right hon. Members on the Front Bench today, I felt that it was right to refer to them as "they" and not to address the Minister who made the statement on the White Paper, as he was not a signatory to it. You may understand now, Mr. Speaker. why I did so.
Are the Government and the Minister not aware that in the past few months we have had the worst outbreak of anthrax for years? Do they not know that the current salmonella outbreak in north Wales and the north-west has tragically resulted in three deaths? If the Government had acted more quickly and more responsibly, the severity of the outbreak could have been avoided.
I take issue with the Minister's concluding words when he said:
The proposals in the White Paper demonstrate the Goverment's commitment to food safety.
I am afraid that they do, and I am afraid that they will be found to be inadequate.

Mr. Gummer: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman fell below his usual standards in addressing the House. Having made a number of untrue and general allegations, he produced not one example of what he would like to have added to the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman has a long record of stirring up anxiety and worry and refusing to give credit for the major changes that the Government have brought. The public will judge him on this as they judged him on the issue of the Chernobyl lamb, when he was seen to be wrong almost every time he spoke in the House.
The hon. Gentleman did not mention, for example, the major change in the legal onus upon those who provide food. No longer will they be able to rely upon the fact that they have a warranty from someone else. They will have to have due diligence in finding out whether the food that they offer for sale is of a standard suitable for the public. He did not mention, for example, that the new system will enable batches of food to be condemned not only when placed on sale to the public, but when in warehouses or landed in the docks. The hon. Gentleman did not mention, for example, that the registration of premises will mean that local environmental health officers and trading standards officers will know precisely which premises they should be inspecting and where they have to ensure that the standards are upheld.
The hon. Gentleman tried to suggest that the document did not cover meat products. I believe that he picked that up from his hon. Friend the shadow Health Secretary, who did not just try to suggest it, but said that he thought that it did not cover meat products. Nothing in the document suggests that it does not cover meat products. It does cover

meat products and no one reading it could possibly imagine otherwise. What it has to do with the United States I do not know.
The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand irradiation, because he says that we need irradiation only when food is not good or wholesome. If food is not good or is unwholesome, irradiation will not cover up its badness, its taste or its smell, and it would be the last thing to use on unwholesome food.
The hon. Gentleman did not say that we are taking on board some of the toughest possible systems for protecting the public, first, by allowing irradiation, which in some circumstances improves on present safety techniques. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman deals with his own cooking arrangements, but if he uses herbs of any kind he must know that the mechanisms now used to ensure that certain imported herbs and spices are without contamination are methods which we do not want to see used, but they are the only methods unless we have irradiation. Irradiation will be centrally controlled, the premises upon which it can be carried out will have to be licensed, and everything that is irradiated will have to carry a clear statement that it has been irradiated.
The hon. Gentleman would do better if he were willing to support the Government's considerable changes and help by distinguishing between when, perfectly properly, true dangers, difficulties and anxieties should be expressed, about which people should be warned, and when people are trying to make money by stirring up anxieties unnecessarily.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is perfectly right to draw our attention to the negative irresponsibility of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)? His proposals will be welcomed by most consumers, but will he work hard on a difficulty which emerges from the proposals? There is a loophole, because imported food does not meet the standards for food produced in this country. Will he do all that he can in Europe to ensure that standards in other European countries are as good as ours?

Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend rightly says that if we are to ask producers and retailers to uphold the highest standards they must not be undermined by products from other countries which do not meet the same standards. The Government intend to ensure that in all circumstances imported food meets the same standards. If it does not, it will be removed from sale.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the White Paper and the fact that legislation will be forthcoming, but may I push the Minister a little further? Will he ban bovine somatotropin and also insubstantial additives such as colour? Will he further ensure that pesticides which have been widely outlawed elsewhere, such as Alar, are proscribed? Above all—the Minister will be aware of this from his previous responsibility—will he ensure, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) asked, that if there is enforcement control in the legislation the enforcement agencies are given more resources than they have at present to make a reality of what will otherwise be only words?

Mr. Gummer: Between now and our having the parliamentary opportunity to introduce a Bill I shall be carefully considering resources and mechanisms, especially those for enforcement.
I have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's views about additives. My small son is very much affected by additives. I am prepared to lend my son for a day to the people who say that additives do not have an effect on children, so long as they give him a glass of a particular brand of soft drink. Once he has had that, they will not want him for the rest of the day. We all recognise the problems of additives and their effect on people. The only way to deal with such problems is to be honourable and to use the scientific evidence available to ensure that people are aware of what products contain and are able to make their own choices.
I do not want to ban things—I want people to choose what they want. Although my child is affected by tartrazine, it is up to me to provide products that do not contain it. If tartrazine is not dangerous and people want it, they should be able to have it. One is on a slippery slope once one starts banning things because one does not like them. We ban only products that are dangerous, and in the two days that I have been in this job I have taken action to do exactly that. We do not have the power to ban something that I consider to be dangerous, but it will have to carry a warning that will make it clear even to the least responsible consumer exactly what it contains.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Alar. One cannot ban everything that anybody in the world, of any standing, thinks is damaging. Each product must be tested extremely carefully, and one must accept the advice of independent testers and the best advisers on the subject. I am prepared to ban things only according to the very best advice. If there is significant doubt, I prefer to follow a safe route. When we are given clear advice in the opposite direction, we must base our actions on that. The British legal system could make it extremely difficult to prove the reason, rationale and sense of taking a decision to ban something.
BST is a synthetic version of a naturally occurring hormone; it is not a drug. Every cow that has produced milk has had it within its body. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we must be tough on products that do damage, but we must be tougher on people who try to spread alarm about safe products.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has given comprehensive answers to a number of questions. I hope that the House will concentrate on the detail of the statement because I should like to call as many hon. Members as possible.

Mr. Keith Raffan: I welcome the White Paper and I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to early legislation. Given the serious outbreak of salmonella poisoning in my constituency in north Wales, and in the north-west, will my right hon. Friend consider issuing early guidelines to butchers and delicatessens about the danger of letting cooked meat stand near raw meat and of using the same equipment for slicing cooked and raw meat? Does he agree—this is important for the Bill—that in the event of an outbreak, to ensure the fullest and most effective co-operation between

local authorities as public health authorities and health authorities, there must be a full exchange of information between them?
Concern is being expressed in north Wales about the delay in announcing the source of the outbreak because the company suspected is so far implicated on the basis of circumstantial evidence and not scientific evidence. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that the Welsh Office was right to name the company believed to be the source earlier today, even though its identity was not 100 per cent. certain. People should be warned as early as possible.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that all hon. Members will want to express their sadness at events in north Wales and Chester. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales took exactly the right decision by insisting that the statement was made so that people were aware of the dangers and could therefore guard against the products.
My hon. Friend mentioned a problem that we have had in the past. In certain circumstances, but not in this one, we are prevented by the nature of the law from taking action. Under the forthcoming legislation, we shall be able to take such action. I will consider the possibility of further guidelines. However, the points that my hon. Friend raised have been made in almost every document year in and year out. He mentioned the need for training in food handling, which we shall be able to provide for in the legislation.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister will have noticed that his "comprehensive strategy" in chapter 7, entitled "Conclusion", appears to occupy less space than the ministerial signature under the foreword. It offers little more than vague and rather banal comment. Does the Minister recognise that the Government's reduction in research on food health makes it more important to ensure that there are sufficient environmental health officers? What is the current shortage of environmental health officers? Is it not several hundred at least? What urgent steps will the Minister take to remedy that deficiency? Until he does that his document will not be worth the paper it is written on.

Mr. Gummer: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's comments. The comprehensive strategy paragraph is merely a summation. All the details of what is being done are in the previous chapters. If the hon. Gentleman had looked at that carefully he would have seen a great deal there to support. He is wrong to say that the Government have cut back on food research. We have undoubtedly had an increasing commitment to food safety research. We are building and shall open a new laboratory in Norwich which will provide even better facilities for work being done in Reading and Norwich. The work that was done in Bristol will largely be concentrated there.
EHOs deal not only with food safety but with a range of other matters. The proportion of time that they spend on different matters varies between local authorities. We have already sent out a questionnaire to enable us to assess the resources and people necessary, the differences between local authorities and the best way to ensure that resources are available. The Government and the Opposition are not far apart in their determination to ensure food safety.

Sir David Price: I welcome the statement. First, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the legislation will insist that food is safe and wholesome when it enters


the food chain? That follows from the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). Secondly, am I right in thinking that my right hon. Friend will put more personal responsibility on the people who handle food throughout the food chain? My third question follows from that of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). Will my right hon. Friend extend the authority of EHOs to car boot sales in football grounds and other places, which are currently outside their scope?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to point to another major change that will take place, which will ensure that we can take account of residues found in animals that are still alive. Until now, one of the problems was that we could not say that particular animals must remain on the farm and not go to slaughter until any residues above the maximum permitted level were removed from the body. That is an important new change and an earnest of our intent to ensure that at every stage in the food chain, not least the beginning, we stop microbiological growths or other contaminants.
My hon. Friend is right that we shall put more onus on the responsibility of food handlers, who will have to rely on their diligence rather than on warranties given by others. The legislation will apply to all premises where food is sold. We shall look carefully at the point about car boot sales, which was not in the forefront of my briefings in the past two days.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the statement and I am glad that it includes Northern Ireland. Will EHOs have greater powers to take action earlier, or will there continue to be a prolonged delay before people are warned? May I commend the Minister for including not only producers but the end handlers—the customers? We are living in an age in which we have grown careless. Is there any reason why, 17 years after the House suspended Stormont, we are still governing Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom by Orders in Council? Northern Ireland Ministers are signatories to the White Paper and at least one adviser is a Northern Ireland Member. Why should there be a further delay before the legislation comes into effect in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Gummer: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not discuss the position in Northern Ireland during this statement on food policy. I can assure him that if the Bill is enacted, it will be applied to Northern Ireland in the usual way. He is right to point to the need for greater powers to enable EHOs to act more quickly. If there is a serious outbreak, they will be able to obtain ministerial permission to act, without the long business of going through the courts and the rest, which may increase the dangers. They will be able to deal with products before they come on sale. That will solve a real difficulty. Previously people could say, "We are not going to put them on sale," but we shall now be able to stop them. The information is already good but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) suggested, we must seek ways to eradicate problems caused by different agencies failing to act together quickly.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that as food is a biological product, there is no prospect of offering the consumer the impossible dream of absolute and permanent food safety? Does he agree that

it is much better to concentrate, as he has done in the White Paper, on matters on which it is appropriate for the Government to take action by means of regulations, research and information? Does he further agree that it is incumbent on all parts of the food chain, from farmer through manufacturer and distributor to consumers. to bear in mind their responsibilities and work with the Government to make food as safe as possible?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that that is the right attitude. It is important to remember that the situation changes all the time. It is only just a year since the World Health Organisation said that listeria could be passed on in food and only more recently that we have been able to detect it by modern methods. People say that we must get rid of listeria in everything, but they do not realise that it occurs in everything. At what level can we accept a substance that is universally found?
It is not helpful for people such as the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) to talk about salmonella as though we were not now dealing with different strains. One strain can be transmitted through the ovaries, others are transmitted in ways that they could not be before. Others have a virulence and continuance that we have not seen before. To blame the Government is like blaming the 1914–18 Government for Spanish 'flu after the first world war.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Minister must be aware that I have continually raised the question of airline food over the past few months. Nothing in the report will deal specifically with that problem. A report by the three EHOs responsible for food safety at Heathrow said that a quarter of all airline food tested contained excessive levels of potentially dangerous bacteria, including salmonella and E coli, which is associated with faecal contamination. When I took the three EHOs to the Department of Health for a discussion with the Minister on that subject, there was a vast discrepancy between what they considered their powers to be and what the Department's advisers considered them to be.

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Mrs. Clwyd: A written reply from the Minister of Health said that the Government did not intend to take any action to improve the codes of practice until spring 1990. Is that not an incredibly long delay, given the potentially dangerous food poisoning time bomb that the EHOs and the Government are sitting on?

Mr. Gummer: I shall look into the details that the hon. Lady put to me. The legislation will ensure that food handling, whether in airports, the smallest village shops or anywhere else, is covered by the regulations. I am sure that she will be happy about that. It was not necessary to refer specifically to airline food. Most of us would hope to be as safe when eating food on a aeroplane as in a restaurant.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my righ hon. Friend accept that the report will be welcomed not only by consumers but by the farming community, which is anxious to ensure purity of food and the highest standard of hygiene on the farm, whether in the production of cheese, poultry or anything else. It will welcome the Government's steps towards that end. I know that my


right hon. Friend is interested in additives. Will he ensure that considerably greater details on additives are given on labels than at present? That would be a help.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will be aware that I have an interest in the second point to which he referred, and I shall look into it further. I support what he said about the farmers and producers of food in this country. They are wholly behind any measures that are designed to ensure that the public have full confidence in their products. It cannot be to the advantage of producers for customers to feel that there may be some doubts about what they buy. Hence I regret a comment made by the shadow spokesman on health which suggested that somehow the Department was so tied to farmers that it would not be concerned with the health of consumers. The interests of both are absolutely identical.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Why does the White Paper claim that the Government gave a warning to pregnant women about listeria as soon as there was a scientific basis for doing do? They know perfectly well that their warning was issued as recently as February this year although a hazard warning was sent to environmental health officers as long ago as November 1987. Why were pregnant women not alerted then so that they could take steps to safeguard themselves and their infants? Why do the Government say that they will set limits on freezer cabinet temperatures when the problem lies with chill cabinets? And why do they not mention cook-chill in connection with retailing, although that occupies acres of space and millions of pounds' worth of investment? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the Select Committee recommendations on listeria and listeriosis?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady will see from the response to the Select Committee—which will soon come to her and other hon. Members—exactly how the Government stand on that, and I will not try to prejudge it. The White Paper says what it says because it is true. We were the first Government in the world to give that warning, and I believe that we were the only Government so to do. The hon. Lady does herself less than justice by making such comments because in this case, as in many others, Britain has led the world in food safety.

Mr. Paul Marland: I give the White Paper a warm welcome, as will all responsible operators, be they producers or distributors of food. It demonstrates my right hon. Friend's willingness to address himself to contemporary problems. There is no doubt that the packaging, distribution and cooking of food has changed greatly in the last few years.
I took exception to the remarks of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) which suggested that all food would now be irradiated. Nothing could be further from the truth. Food safety is a shared responsibility. May we be assured that more information, and perhaps training, will be given not only to housewives but to cooks in how to handle frozen and chilled food when it reaches their kitchens?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that that is an important part of what we have to do.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I wish to express severe disappointment with the Minister's statement and with the White Paper, which strikes me as superficial and not tackling the root of the problem. There is little in the Minister's comments about the producer, nothing about farms, factory farming and animal feeding, and little about food processing. Why do the Government continually blame the retailer, the housewife and the consumer for poor hygiene, when in truth the problem lies with production?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly have read the White Paper and then asked that question. The reason why the statements in the areas about which he spoke do not appear in the document in extenso is that most of them are fully covered by our present legislation. The hon. Gentleman should compare our legislation now with that of other countries. In general, we have the most comprehensive, up-to-date and efficient legislation. He may have noticed that in the first comments that I made as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food I emphasised that I saw it as a consumer Ministry.

Mr. Simon Coombs: My right hon. Friend's proposals will be widely welcomed by all who are not motivated by ignorance or political malice. Does he propose to seek consultative responses to his proposals and, if so, over what period will they be sought? Does he propose to deal with banning mineral hydrocarbons in food under the legislation that he outlined for a future Session of Parliament? Will the matters in annex 3 to the White Paper on diet and nutrition form part of legislative proposals in the Bill? If so, may we be told what they might be? Does he propose to introduce mandatory labelling of sugar, fat, salt and fibre in all food products?

Mr. Gummer: A number of the measures to which my hon. Friend refers are possible under our present legislation, and more will be possible under the extensions that will take place. We shall not be going in for further consultation. This is the result of four years of consultation and we must proceed to legislate as rapidly as parliamentary time can be found.

Mr. Tony Banks: This all seems to my hon. Friends and me to be an expensive PR exercise in dealing with the real problems of food handling, hygiene and safety. Where has the Minister been? People in south London are having to boil their drinking water, if they are lucky enough to have any. People in other parts of London are finding that there is so much pollution in the water—they can chew it. Half the country seems to have the runs; people cannot go swimming in the water-they can only go through the motions because so much raw sewage is being dumped in the sea.
All that is going on while the Minister presents this sort of document to us. There is nothing in it to say when a new Bill, or the various pieces of legislation to which reference has been made, will be brought before Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman talks about things happening when parliamentary time can be found. Will the Queen's Speech detail action to implement the proposals in the White Paper? What resources will be made available to hard-pressed local authorities in inner-city areas, particularly in London, including Newham, to enforce the


new regulations? Unless we have new resources, this will remain a lot of airy-fairy pie in the sky, which is probably polluted as well.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman wonders where I have been. His description of Britain leads me to wonder where he has been.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the White Paper will be as welcome as has been his action, in the past and for the future, to deal with salmonella? In the course of the review to which he referred, will he review the arrangements for poultry flock inspections so that they will be more in the nature of a rapier than a bludgeon? In particular, will he ensure that under the emergency orders, analyses of samples are carried out quickly? Will he ensure that, for the sake of small producers, the costs of poultry inspection orders are kept as low as possible? Will he also see that the same, and certainly no lower, standards are applied to imported eggs as are applied to eggs produced in Britain to make sure that they are free from salmonella?

Mr. Gummer: I shall certainly see that there is equality of standards. I shall also make sure that, so far as is possible, the cost of enforcement is as low as is acceptable in line with the highest standards of safety, which must come first. I shall be looking again at the way in which we deal with the poultry sector because I am concerned that public confidence in poultry should continue, and that can happen only if we make sure that our inspections are properly conducted.

Sir Dudley Smith: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's positive approach, which will do much to reassure the public after recent alarmist publicity, may I ask him whether, after all the exchanges that we have heard today, there is actually any more food poisoning now than there was 20 years ago?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend must accept that there has been an increase in the incidence of food poisoning in some areas. Partly it has been a real increase, partly it has been because of new methods of detecting various kinds of microbiological activity, and partly it has been because the standard of living of many more people now enables them to buy all sorts of products. A much bigger variety of food is available. More and more people can now buy a much wider range of food, coming from many places and presented in different ways. However, many people do not

follow the instructions or cook the food as it should be cooked. They often keep it at home in unsuitable conditions well after they have bought it. Those are the problems that we hope to tackle. We cannot hide that side of the matter and pretend that everything has to be done by the Government. Government and local authorities can do a great deal, but in the end consumers have to do a good deal themselves to make sure that they keep food properly.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the food industry in Britain is one of the most imaginative, innovative and hygienic in the world? Does he agree that the way in which Opposition Members are for ever trying to run down British industry—be it the food industry or the water industry—is appalling? Obviously I welcome the White Paper, but will my right hon. Friend reassure me that when the food Bill comes before Parliament it will not burden the food industry with too much red tape or over-regulation?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that we have to have sufficient regulations to protect the interests of the consumer and of the food industry, because they have the same interest in people having confidence in the food that is produced and sold. However, my hon. Friend is right to remind the public outside that throughout this debate the Labour party has cast aspersions on British manufacturers, British workers, British firms and British farms, which are unworthy of them.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to make it clear to the country that many of the protestations of the Labour party form part of its not-so-hidden agenda as exemplified in early-clay motion 1151, which is signed by many Labour Members and calls in direct terms for
effective state control of the food industry.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from policy statements of that nature is that, if a Labour Government were ever returned, food companies in Banbury such as General Foods, Mattesons, Walls and Lesmay, and their work forces would come under state control?

Mr. Gummer: I would have much more confidence in the safety of firms, the future of which depends on the confidence of the public, in a free market than I would in the safety of food produced in bureaucratic kitchens.

Dock Workers (Redundancy Pay)

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the revelation of the improper use of public funds for the payment of redundancies in the dock dispute.
It has just come to light that a serious abuse involving the misappropriation of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is being committed under the compensation arrangements following the ending of the national dock labour scheme. Several examples have been brought to my attention which show either that the Secretary of State for Employment is presiding over the illegal disbursement of large sums of public money or that he has drawn up the terms of the compensation scheme so loosely as to be guilty of gross negligence.
This is a specific matter because paragraph 3 of the schedule to the Dock Work (Compensation Payment Scheme) Regulations 1989 states explicitly that an employee is
dismissed by reason of redundancy",
and therefore entitled to compensation, only if either his employer becomes insolvent or moves his business to a new location or decides that he needs fewer employees.
I have several examples showing that millions of pounds of Government money has been paid when none of those conditions applies. One port employer, English China Clay, made 72 registered dock workers redundant in the ports of Par and Fowey in Cornwall, while guaranteeing jobs back to all those who wanted them under new agreements to do the same work. The taxpayer had to pay 50 per cent. of the cost of those so-called redundancies, amounting to £1·25 million.
In another case, John Sutcliffe (Stevedores) Ltd., which used to supply 45 registered dock workers on a weekly basis to a company called DFDS, went into liquidation and paid severance payments to all the dockers. However, DFDS then took back 21 of the old Sutcliffe dock workers as its own employees, although refusing to recognise the Transport and General Workers Union. The taxpayer had to pay 100 per cent. of the cost of that manoeuvre, amounting to about £1·5 million.
In addition, the manager of Sutcliffe Stevedores has set up his own dock-work business and is employing 40 ex-registered dock workers although they are claiming and entitled to severance pay. Similarly, the manager of Lindsey Dock Services, whose company was liquidated, has now set up in business and has taken back eight dock workers although they are in receipt of severance payments.
This is an important matter because large sums of taxpayers' money are being used, not to fund genuine redundancies, but to finance a continuation of the same work in another guise, designed to achieve the de-recognition of the union. The compensation arrangements are being perverted by the employers.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,

the revelation of improper use of public funds for the payment of redundancies in the docks dispute.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, under Standing Order No. 20 I have to consider the requirements of the Order and to announce my decision without giving reasons. I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman has said. He knows that my duty in considering his application is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business set down for seven o'clock this evening. I regret that the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will agree with me when I say that the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) should be referred immediately to the National Audit Office and to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee because it raises matters of public interest.
I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will have seen in the national press in the past few days a lot of tittle-tattle about grace and favour offers being made to the former Foreign Secretary to appease his anger. These are not matters on which you would wish to rule, Mr. Speaker, but there is a matter——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a question on which I can rule, nor are they matters for me at all.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, they are not matters for you, but there is a matter for you. I understand that a grace and favour offer of the Speakership was offered to the former Foreign Secretary as part of an effort to keep him quiet. This is a matter——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that we are about to go on holiday, but that is taking it a bit too far.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Speaker: We have important business——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It must be a matter on which I can rule.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that the question of the Speakership is a House of Commons matter uniquely. The Speakership is decided upon by Members of Parliament and you were elected by Members of Parliament. Prime Ministers should not interfere. Would you not condemn the practice of any Prime Minister who made an offer of that nature to a former Minister?

Mr. Speaker: I know absolutely nothing about matters of that kind.

BILL PRESENTED

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE (REGIONAL CONSEQUENCES)

Mr. Tony Lloyd presented a Bill to require the inclusion in the Financial Statement and the Public Expenditure White Paper of a breakdown of taxation and expenditure by region and a statement of the impact of the changes


proposed on each region: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 202.]

Sir Victor Le Fanu, KCVO

pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move,
That this House recognises the loyal and devoted manner in which Sir Victor Le Fanu, KCVO has discharged the duties of the Office of Serjeant at Arms; expresses its profound appreciation for his 26 years of exemplary service to the House; and extends to him its best wishes for his retirement.
One of the happy features of life is the way in which, by coincidence, it is open to me to speak in support of the motion in tribute to Sir Victor Le Fanu for his services to the House since 1963.
The House well knows of Sir Victor's active military career in the Coldstream Guards, after which he joined the office of Serjeant at Arms as long as 26 years ago as Deputy Assistant Serjeant at Arms. He then successively held the posts of Assistant Serjeant at Arms and Deputy Serjeant at Arms before taking up his present position of Serjeant at Arms in 1982.
Today we all have an opportunity, to pay tribute to Sir Victor for his work. He has won the respect of both sides of the House for the way in which he has carried out his duties. Hon. Members will recall the unfailing diplomacy and courtesy that they could expect from Sir Victor as he sought to meet the many calls on his Department, and. to deal with our often conflicting expectations and requests.
During his time in the House, there have been enormous changes in the services required from the Serjeant at Arms Department, and in the size of the estate that it administers. He has handled those changes with characteristic patience and skill. Sir Victor has always managed to maintain a careful balance between responding to new demands and resisting change for its own sake. In that sense, he has upheld the finest traditions of his office.
One increasingly important, sadly, and difficult aspect of the Serjeant at Arms' job is to maintain the security of the House. Concern about security has greatly increased during Sir Victor's time here. While we all deeply regret that necessity, I know that we have all welcomed the fact that that security has been in such capable hands.
Like his predecessors, Sir Victor has been required to produce a great deal from the limited resources that the House has placed at his disposal. He has always risen to that challenge admirably. During his time as Serjeant at Arms, we have managed to make substantial progress with new buildings, which we hope will do much to ease the pressure on the hard-pressed facilities of the House. Sir Victor has been much involved in that work, and while it has not made his task any simpler, I am sure that he is delighted to have played a part in making life a little easier for his successor, Sir Alan Urwick, who is well known to me from his two previous ambassadorial roles in the important cities of Cairo and Ottawa. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in extending a warm welcome to him.
Sir Victor's advice and assistance has been valued by successive Leaders of the House. I regret that, in my present role, I will not have the opportunity to benefit from his experience, but I can at least speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that I am extremely glad of this chance to express our gratitude and our warm wishes to Sir Victor for his retirement.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I am delighted, on behalf of the Opposition, to support the motion, which stands in the name of the leaders of all parties in the House. I have been asked by the leaders of the Social Democratic party, the Ulster Unionists, the Democratic Unionists, the Scottish nationalists and the Welsh nationalists to express their thanks and best wishes.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the Ulster Popular Unionists.

Mr. Dobson: And the Popular Unionists, whose request has just been received.
It is appropriate that this motion should be in the names of the leaders of all parties because Sir Victor has always done his best to serve us all. His task was made more difficult, not by any shortcomings on his part, or that of his staff, but by our own continued failure to vote for the necessary resources for them to provide the services that we request. As a result, Sir Victor has spent much of his time being asked for the use of rooms that have not been built and for other services for which we were not prepared to vote the money. These unceasing demands that Sir Victor produce an unending quart from a pint pot, make all the more remarkable his unfailing courtesy when dealing with Members' demands and requests.
As the Leader of the House has said, in recent times Sir Victor and his staff have faced the difficult problem of trying to reconcile the need for the public to have freedom of access to their Members of Parliament with the conflicting need to secure the safety of this place as a symbol of democracy and the safety of hon. Members and staff. That has been a difficult balance to achieve, and it is only fair to attribute what has gone right to Sir Victor and his colleagues and any shortcomings to the decisions which we, as a House have made.
At the start of his adult life, Sir Victor was on active service with the Coldstream Guards in Italy, where he was wounded in action. His 20 years of service to this House have been rather less dangerous, but both phases of his career show his lifelong commitment to our country's democratic institutions, which was surely best demonstrated by his friendly demeanour and his willingness to listen to others and to respond to their needs—qualities that must lie in the hearts of those who sustain the democratic ideal. We all thank him for his service and we wish him a long, contented and well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the motion has not been signed by the leader of every political party in the House, may it be amended accordingly?

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It gives me great pleasure to associate myself with what has been said about Sir Victor Le Fanu. I am glad to have this opportunity to express, on behalf of my colleagues, our gratitude for the service Sir Victor has given to the House.
I do not wish to detain the House by repeating the many points that have already been made, but the post of Serjeant at Arms requires special qualities, which Sir Victor has shown in abundance. He has provided a tight rein, a tight ship and the administration that we need to be able to do our jobs effectively.
I shall pick out two special qualities of Sir Victor. The first is patience, which has certainly been required to put into practice the system of passes that provides the security that has already been mentioned. The second is courtesy, which we have all seen in abundance, and which is something for which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are especially grateful.
Sir Victor has a wide range of interests, so it would be inappropriate to wish him a restful retirement in Bath, but we wish him a happy retirement and we assure him that we are grateful for his services to us.

Sir Bernard Braine: I agree with what has been said in tribute to the retiring Serjeant at Arms. Without the firm authority that you, Mr. Speaker, exercise over our exchanges in this place, the wise counsel of the Clerks and the orderly arrangements of our high steward, the Serjeant at Arms—without, so to speak the wig, the pen and the sword—I doubt whether the rest of us would get very far. You jointly provide the framework without which we eager, disparate and sometimes argumentative legislators could not do our work, and for that, and the skill and dedication you show in our service, hon. Members on both sides of the House are truly grateful.
It is therefore fitting that, when one of these guardians of our rights, our convenience and working arrangements, retires, we should acknowledge the debt and pay our tribute. It is truly astonishing that we have had only seven Serjeants at Arms in the past 100 years, and perhaps it says something about my great age that I have known, personally, five out of the seven.
The Serjeant at Arms does not have an easy role. He has to carry out his duties as housekeeper with whatever means the House itself wills and provides. He directs a large staff, who serve us admirably. He is responsible for our security—and never has that been a more onerous task than in recent years. Above all, he must possess qualities of firmness and tact.
Victor Le Fanu learnt how to manage people in a very hard school. He served with courage and distinction in the Coldstream Guards, and was badly wounded in Italy in 1944. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that the regimental motto of the Coldstream Guards is "Nulli Secundus"—"second to none". Those of us who served in the Army know that that is a clarion call which evokes loyalty and devotion to one's regiment.
For over a quarter of a century, Victor Le Fanu has given that same loyalty and devotion to the House. He has done so in his own quiet, courteous and effective way. As the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) pointed out, he has always been a good listener, has always done his level best to help individual Members. He has shown no favour to either side, and I can honestly say that he has been a true friend to us all. His service to the House of Commons has been "Nulli Secundus", second to none. We salute him for a task faithfully discharged; we thank him for all that he has done in our service; we wish him and Lady Le Fanu a long and happy retirement.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will you forgive a mere Back Bencher, Mr. Speaker, for taking two seconds of the House's time to pay a genuine tribute to a very special man?
The House of Commons is not a very gentle place—it is a cruel crucible that does not always forge friendships or appreciation—but many of us who have been privileged to work with Victor Le Fanu know that he is a special kind of man. Although I support other hon. Members' recognition of his formal abilities, they have not highlighted—as I wish to—his wit, warmth and real wisdom.
Those of us who have been in the House for many years know that to serve Members of Parliament is not the easiest task in the world: they are a difficult, individual and occasionally anti-social group. This man has achieved—with tremendous effort and great kindness—something truly unique. He has served us all and given of his best, but he has done more than that: he has proved to us that those who serve the House of Commons with the degree of intelligence and ability that he has shown throughout his career do us great honour, and we miss them deeply when they go.

Sir David Price: I intrude on these tributes to Sir Victor only for a moment. I believe that I knew him professionally before any other right hon. or hon. Member present today: we went through the Guards' depot as recruits on the same day, and no one can start lower in the British Army than as a recruit at Caterham.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braise) mentioned Sir Victor's military service. Our then squad sergeant went under the name of Lance-Sergeant Jelly, than which a more improbable name could hardly he imagined for a man who ended up as one of the Brigade of Guards' most distinguished regimental sergeant majors. We saw in Victor then the qualities that the House has seen since. He will always remain a sergeant in our minds, and anyone who has once been a guardsman is always a guardsman.

Sir Peter Emery: I wish to recount, very briefly, an incident that occurred when Sir Victor first came into the service of the Serjeant at Arms' Department 26 years ago. When he had been in the House for three or

four weeks and I was still a fairly new Member of Parliament, he said to me, "I do not know whether I shall be able to put up with all these late nights."
I remind the House that in those days we had many more late-night sittings—on the Finance Bill, for instance—and the junior member of the Serjeant at Arms' Department had to be present until 2 am, 3 am or 4 am. Sir Victor was well able to overcome his worries, however, and went on to give the House distinguished service. The difficulties that the Serjeant at Arms' Department experienced in those days may be balanced by today's different problems, but the way in which Sir Victor coped with a life that was very different from what he had previously experienced pays tribute to his persistence. We should all be most grateful for all that he has given over the past 26 years.

Mr. Ray Powell: As yet another Back Bencher, I wish to pay tribute to Sir Victor for the service that he has given and for the friendship that he has extended to me, as the person responsible for the allocation of accommodation for Opposition Members and also as Chairman of the New Building Committee. His interest in that has already been mentioned. He was most understanding when Members had no reasonable accommodation.
I well remember, when I was first elected, being taken to the Serjeant at Arms when a request had been made by the then James Callaghan. The Serjeant at Arms said, "We have no accommodation for you, but I can let you have the key to a locker." I thought that I would have somewhere to hang my coat, and was very disappointed when I found that I could not even fit my briefcase into the locker. We have progressed since then.
Let me also pay tribute to Sir Victor's staff: they, 1.00, are deserving of credit for the understanding way in which they deal with Members, particularly new Members.
I well recall Sir Victor's understanding behaviour on a cold night in 1983. You, Mr. Speaker—then as Deputy Speaker—decided to ask for my removal from the Chamber, and he was far more understanding than you were.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises the loyal and devoted manner in which Sir Victor Le Fanu, KCVO has discharged the duties of the Office of Serjeant at Arms; expresses its profound appreciation for his 26 years of examplary service to the House; and extends to him its best wishes for his retirement.

Summer Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House, at its rising on Friday 28th July, do adjourn until Tuesday 17th October.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Mr. Speaker: May I say to hon. Members anxious to take part in the debate that, if they limit their speeches to about 10 minutes or a little less, it will be possible to call all who have so far signified their wish to participate?

Sir Dudley Smith: As a Member of Parliament, I have always believed that Parliament's main duty—and the main duty of those of us who comprise it—is to safeguard the individual against excessive bureucracy and oppressiveness. That is why I am raising a subject that should, I think, be debated and considered by the House. I believe that an inquiry should be held into the way in which the Official Receiver's office is run, how many mistakes it makes and why, when its clients are in understandable distress, it takes such an icy, offhand attitude.
Recently a constituent of mine was declared bankrupt, which came as a terrible shock to him, for—I am glad to say—he was no more bankrupt than I, or any other hon. Member present. My constituent, Mr. Raymond Francis Wood of Warwick, who had been in poor health, received an official form out of the blue stating that the court had ordered that he be publicly examined for insolvency. It said that he was liable to imprisonment unless he complied. The form came from the office of the Official Receivers at Atlantic house, Holborn Viaduct, London.
My constituent was shocked and lodged a protest. He then received a summons which said that upon the application of the Official Receiver
the above-named bankrupt do attend the Court sitting in Bankruptcy at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand".
Dire warnings were attached about what would happen to him if he did not attend.
Those communications were followed by a letter written by a Mr. E. S. Burns, assistant official receiver. The letter sets out my constituent's name and the High Court number of the hearing. It says:
You may have recently received an Order of the High Court of Justice requiring you to attend at the Court Premises for a Public Examination.
The purpose of this was to enforce the attendance of a bankrupt who bears the same name as you 'Raymond Francis Wood'.
Unfortunately a Land Registry Search for the name quoted was undertaken which appeared to indicate that the bankrupt had the same address as you.
My further investigation has revealed that you are not the same person whom the Official Receiver is seeking to be publicly examined.
In the circumstances I ask you to ignore the Order and return the same to the Official Receiver. The Court would be informed of the mistake made.
I apologise sincerely for any inconveniences caused.
Not unnaturally, my constituent was upset by that letter and was not prepared to accept that kind of apology. He declined to accept it and wrote to Mr. Burns and to me. In his letter to Mr. Burns, he said:
After receiving my first High Court order I rang your Mr. Banwell and was told that your investigators had traced me to this address. I am not at all satisfied with this explanation as I have lived at this address for 22 years, since the house was built, and within 800 yards of it all my life. There is absolutely

nothing to connect me with the person you require. I have never lived in London, never been in business for myself, and in fact I worked for the same Company for over 22 years.
As Mr. Banwell to told me he had issued five other Court Orders in this matter it would seem that you send them at random either from the Electoral Roll or Land Registry to anyone who happens to have the same name. If this is the case I feel very strongly that it is wrong and steps should be taken to stop this practice immediately, particularly as two days after my conversation with Mr. Banwell, in which he promised me an apology, I received yet another identical High Court Order, this time by recorded delivery. If I had been elderly or in ill health the consequences could have been extremely serious.
My constituent, Mr. Wood, suffers from some ill health. I am sure that hon. Members will agree with the tenor of that letter.
I immediately raised the matter with the then Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs and he went into the details, obviously having an official brief on the subject. His letter to me concluded:
Official Receivers have instructions that in circumstances such as existed in this case they should proceed with extreme circumspection and only after due enquiry. Clearly that did not happen here, for which I can only tender my and the Department's profound apologies. You will wish to know that officials have now reminded Official Receivers of those instructions and reinforced the necessity for them to be followed.
I hope that that is true. In my experience many bureaucrats shrug off such admonitions. They are well protected from the sack and carry on in their own bureaucratic, self-satisfied way.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my hon. Friend know whether a note has been placed upon their employment files giving a clear warning under the terms of the relevant Acts about the way in which they have behaved?

Sir Dudley Smith: I do not know, but my hon. Friend raises an important point. When such things happen, people should not be allowed to escape, because they would not escape in private industry or services.
Plainly, the Official Receiver's office has been inefficient and often relies just on names. If a person is unlucky enough to have a reasonably common Christian name that is coupled with a reasonably common surname, he is vulnerable. As I said to my constituent when I went into this matter with him, I found the conduct of the Official Receiver's office quite disgraceful. In its warning notice to my constituent, the office described him as "the above-named bankrupt". I think that the office committed libel by calling my constituent a bankrupt, and it would have been most embarrassing if the document had fallen into other hands, because it would have branded him with other people.
It is Parliament's job to curb the excesses and the inexcusable bureaucratic mistakes that can harm people. I hope that, by raising the matter, I shall perhaps have done something to ensure that in future other people will not go through the trauma that Mr. Wood had to endure.

Sir Russell Johnston: Before we adjourn for the recess, we should pay attention to one important matter, even if we do so only briefly. It is unfortunate that, coinciding with a significant change at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, commentators are agreed that there is a change of attitude, especially towards


the European Community. That has coincided with a series of what are perhaps the most forthright comments made by another Community Head of State about the British situation. I refer to the remarks by President Mitterrand about British policy towards European Community development, and specifically about how this development is seen by our Prime Minister and by the new Ministers who will have responsibility for EC matters.
During Prime Minister's Question Time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) raised the matter with the Prime Minister, who simply suggested that, because we had liberalised capital movements and the French had not, we should not be criticised. During business questions, the matter was briefly raised with the new Leader of the House, who, in his calm, emollient way, said that we did not necessarily have to respond to comments made by other friendly Heads of State about our conditions and policies.
I am aware that we are under pressure of time and I shall not seek to generate a general debate on the topic. President Mitterrand puts the matter well, with his Gallic succinctness. In talking about Britain, he says:
This important country is caught between two contradictory desires: one to remain in Europe, and the other not to accept the trend set by the majority of the Community countries.
That is very true, and President Mitterrand puts his finger on the exact spot. Then he draws certain conclusions from that.
The President had earlier drawn certain conclusions from that. He talked about another intergovernmental conference having been agreed in Madrid heading towards economic and monetary union and the working out of Delors and said:
what cannot be agreed by 12 may be done among 11, 10 or nine. I do not want this. It would create a new political situation which at the moment I do not welcome. Each of the 12, including the United Kingdom, is attached to the Community.
Hon. Members will note that President Mitterrand puts the whole matter in a fair and balanced way and does not seek to be pejorative about it—a lesson that could perhaps be learned by others. He continued:
Let us play the card of agreement. But let us also accept that if this does not work, we should press on with those who want to.
So you do not rule out a new treaty agreed by all 12 members?
I do not exclude this.
That is a significant statement by a leading Head of State of a friendly European Community country. If such a person is moved to put things in such a blunt, although balanced, fashion, the Government have a responsibility to make some response and to say that the United Kingdom is not interested in a two-stage Europe. We shall fight our corner and argue our case, but we should be committed to the objectives that were set out clearly when we signed the Single European Act. We too want to participate in the influence and the considerable prosperity that will stem from economic and monetary union.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Before the House rises for the summer recess, I shall put again the case for Manchester international airport. This airport is important because it is far and away the largest single employer in my constituency. I am anxious about something that I have raised time and again—the need for

more transcontinental flights into and out of Manchester airport. We are continually being told about the congestion in the airports of the south-east, and we can do something about that by giving more flights to the north. For far too long, the north of England has been treated as a poor relation. I cannot understand why it is so necessary for people from the north of England to have to take the shuttle to London, change planes and fly from there when they want to fly to the continent.
I am grateful for all that the Government have clone for Manchester airport in the past 10 years. In that period, it has been the fastest expanding airport in the United Kingdom, if not in the whole of Europe. Recently, we had the approval of the rail link, which will bring about an enormous boost. We know that the Department of Transport regards the terminal 2 project that is under way as of key importance for the achievement of the Government's national airport policy objectives.
However, I am concerned that efforts should be made to ensure additional airport capacity, away from the congested south-east and into the north. That will riot only remove some of the congestion in the south-east but will combat the serious competititive threat posed to United Kingdom aviation interests by air service arid hub developments in northern Europe. That is why it is essential that we have a successful conclusion to the on-going negotiation with the United States Government about allowing additional United States airline services to serve the regional market via Manchester.
Recently, the Civil Aviation Authority published its interim advice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in which it stressed that it would wish to consider more fully the contribution that airports outside the south-east could make to resolving capacity problems before recommending solutions involving additional runway capacity within the London area. As Lord King, the chairman of British Airways, recently said, unless the capacity problems in the United Kingdom are solved soon, the impetus may be lost to alternative European gateways such as Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam and, dare I say it, Brussels, which we have recently read could be actively promoted by British Airways in conjunction with Sabena.
In the British regions, we believe that there is a strong and attractive alternative—the opportunity to release from the London system the 25 per cent. of air travellers who are unnecessarily forced to use either Heathrow or Gatwick when they would be better served by using local airports. There would be two benefits of such a move: it would allow London to continue to meet the air travel needs of the capital, and it would ensure that the economic benefits from air service growth accrue in the British regions, not the more prosperous parts of northern central Europe. It cannot be sensible, taking only congestion into account, for London to be served by 367 weekly return flights to the United States, whereas Manchester has only 16.
I was pleased and encouraged to learn that the CAA said in its recent report that there may now be a case for linking air service licensing policy to the achievement of airports policy objectives. I think that it will be agreed that these objectives should take full account of regional economic benefits.
The United States airline services are a vital part of any strategy both to relieve congestion at the London area airports and to combat the competitive threat posed by alternative European gateways. For a long time, the


United Kingdom has served as the transatlantic gateway to Europe through London. Recognising the congestion there and the evident strong demand levels generated away from the south-east, the United States carriers have, for several years, been expressing increasingly strong interest in servicing northern and central Britain through Manchester.
Applications for five routes are already on the table, from American Airlines, North West Airlines and PanAm with Delta Airlines expressing strong interest as well. In addition, the daily American airlines flight from Manchester to Chicago has operated since 1986, but only on a temporary permit. It should be remembered that United States airlines not only wish to serve the buoyant regional market but are also looking to service gateways into Europe. It follows that, if the United Kingdom is not willing to provide those gateways, the flights will, sadly, go instead to alternative European points. This could mean that the United Kingdom regions will increasingly find themselves served from European gateways such as Frankfurt and Paris, by airlines of other European countries, not directly or from London. If this happens, all the United Kingdom aviation industry will suffer. Surely this cannot be in the national interest.
To emphasise this point, I can tell the House that two American Airlines aircraft earmarked to fly this summer between Manchester and New York and to operate a second daily service to Chicago, are now flying instead to Brussels and Lyons. I understand that the French Government, about whom the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) has just been talking, actively encouraged the airline to fly to Lyons as an instrument in regional policy, whereas in the United Kingdom we have allowed procrastinated negotiations to stall access to Manchester since 1986.
It is generally acknowledged that air service development brings strong economic benefits. Recent studies have shown that the American Airlines service to Chicago has already created 1,200 jobs. Moreover, the additional route licences applied for to serve Manchester would generate an estimated income of £45 million a year, and 3,500 jobs. Furthermore, it is essential that Britain's accessibility is maintained if it is to be competitive in the single European market. The United Kingdom should not allow the emphasis to shift away by adopting policies that drive air service development to continental Europe. I know that it is not entirely in the interest of the United Kingdom to give away such rights to the United States; nobody could dispute that. However, there is a clear need for a balanced package that weighs the regional economic benefits and the strategic European dimension against pure airline economics.
I recently received a helpful letter from my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Transport on the subject of route licensing, which explains that the ball is in the hands of the United States Government. However, without wishing to weaken the British negotiating stance, I urge that we seek a reasonable price at the talks due to take place later this year.
It is essential that a speedy conclusion be reached in the negotiations, which have already been going on for four years. Prior to the White Paper on airport policy, the Department of Transport was looking to promote

Manchester as an alternative gateway, and hence only moderate reciprocal rights were sought. However, strong airline interest was expressed subsequently in the United States, to which the British negotiators responded by forcing up the price. For example, United Kingdom demands have risen from six behind points in early 1988 to 90, at one stage, in the most recent negotiations earlier this year.
In the talks that take place in October, or, I hope, sooner, I trust that the Department of Transport will weigh fully the costs of delay within the wider European context and ensure that a deal is struck at a reasonable price that is acceptable to all. If the talks break down there is a real risk that the emphasis will shift so firmly to the European mainland that the Amricans may withdraw their interest in serving Manchester and concentrate on European gateways, with the attendant benefits being lost to the United Kingdom. That must not be allowed to happen.
Manchester international airport is of enormous importance to the economy of the north of England. At one stage, it was hailed as the jewel in the crown of the north of England. I hope that, to relieve congestion in the south-east and to ensure that the north gets a fair deal, my right hon. Friend will take note of what I have said. We should have a statement on this important issue before the House rises for the summer recess.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter that should be of concern to the entire House. I refer to the dock strike and the activities that have been taking place in dockland over the past few weeks.
The Government constantly claim that they are an Administration of non-intervention in industrial relations. In fact, it was the hand of the Government that removed the national dock labour scheme, which had served the industry well since 1947. It was said on Second Reading of the Dock Work Bill, and in Committee, that one of the reasons why the Government felt that the scheme was no longer relevant was that it was 42 years old. If that is the criterion on which we are to base the usefulness of institutions, this place should close down. The other place should certainly go. There are many other institutions that are 400, 500 or 600 years old, and some are even older than that. Should they all be scrapped? It is a weak argument to say that an institution or a scheme should be abolished merely because of its age. The scheme was introduced because of the consequences of the second world war and to eliminate the foul practices that obtained in the dock industry between the wars.
The Government have shown by their actions that they are not an Administration of non-intervention in industrial relations. They are creating a climate in which it is virtually impossible for a trade union to pursue its proper responsibilities in representing its members without finding itself before the courts. Injunctions will be served upon it, and it will find that its finances are threatened. The Government argue that they have a right to introduce legislation that has that effect, but have they reflected on the long-term effects of such legislation?
We have often heard Conservative Members express sympathy for the Polish workers, for the trade unions in the Soviet Union and for the deprivation of workers' rights


in countries, where it could be argued that the unions are part of the state machine. Tears are being shed for the Polish workers and for other workers elsewhere, but it is far easier to have a strike in Turkey or in some Latin American countries—countries which have been referred to as tinpot dictatorships—than it is in Britain.
The Government should be aware that the trade union movement was established to combat the power of capital and to achieve some balance in the industrial world so that hyper-exploitation could be eliminated and men and women could work in decent conditions for decent wages. It is depressing that the balance has swung so heavily in favour of the employer and of capital. When the Dock Work Bill was being considered in Committee, employers were telling Ministers that they had no intention of taking advantage of the abolition of the scheme to introduce practices that had been eliminated as a result of the legislation of 1947. Hands were placed on hearts and employers said that they would be reasonable men. We were told that there was no need to fear the removal of the scheme, because employer's attitudes had changed and they were now men of reason. On the first day of the strike, the men of reason were sacking employees with 25 years' experience in the industry. Some of the men had been working in the industry for as long as 30 years.
I have seen many acts of victimisation in the docks over many years, but probably the most blatant was the sacking of 16 shop stewards at Tilbury while other ex-registered dock workers were allowed to return to work. That demonstrates the almost obsessional hatred that the Government have for the trade union movement. There have been examples of this in many industries. It appears that we, the Opposition, must consider seriously whether the events of the past few weeks constitute a challenge to the right to strike. The events at Tilbury suggest that, if a person or persons go on strike, they can be faced immediately with the choice of returning to work or losing their jobs. In many instances, if not all, men and women will be compelled to return to work. Should we condone the actions of employers that result in the removal of the right to strike?
When the Minister replies, I ask him to tell the House whether the Government, and the Prime Minister especially, still believe that there is a right to belong to a trade union, and, more importantly, a right for the individual to remove his labour if the conditions in which he is working are unacceptable. Those issues relate directly to the foundation on which the trade union movement was built. I am talking of the tradition which has been upheld by the movement, and which has served industry well over the years.
I do not doubt that, during the summer recess, there will be more trouble in the docks. In the past decade, or possibly the past two, there has been a better relationship in the docks between employers and dock workers, and the strike record will prove that that is so. There have been dramatic changes in the industry, which prove that dockers are not adhering to outdated and outmoded practices. How can it be argued that dock workers are following outmoded practices when they are working with machinery which is worth in excess of £500,000? Dock workers are now skilled technicians. All the old practices have long since left the industry.
The Government have acted with pique, spite and hatred towards the trade union movement. However, I

believe that, at the end of the day, they will relent, because as long as that attitude prevails, industrial relations will remain in the state that they are today.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Part of me is delighted that I have the opportunity to address my remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, because, as he is a most distinguished and eminent legal figure, he will appreciate my remarks more than most.
The Government are about to commence, or are in the course of drafting, their legislative proposals on the work and organisation of the legal profession. As the House has not debated the Green Paper, still less the proposals in the White Paper announced only last week, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will not mind if I take a moment or two to set out why I and many other lawyers opposed the Green Papers and are extremely apprehensive and rather unhappy about the White Paper, while conceding that it makes some improvements.
Contrary to popular mythology, the Bar's opposition to the Green Papers had nothing to do with keeping the earnings of the Bar high. The proposals would certainly drive many barristers into becoming solicitors, in which capacity they would earn a considerably higher income. That is made self-evident by two facts. The average income of a solicitor in a City of London firm is approximately double that of a barrister, in London chambers, of similar age and experience, as assessed by independent financial experts. Also, the Crown prosecution service in London pays £250 per day for a solicitor for precisely the same work that it pays a barrister £100 to do.
I had five main concerns about the Green Papers, which have not been dispelled by the White Paper.
First, as there has been no great surge of public criticism of the legal profession, why is it necessary to reject the advice of the Benson royal commission on legal services in 1979 that changes such as those now proposed are unnecessary? What has happened to make the Government eat their own words, given that they confirmed in 1981, 1983 and 1987 that they also did not consider any changes to be necessary?
Secondly, if the profession of solicitor has all the advantages of being a member of the Bar, plus its own very considerable attractions, why should graduates want to go to the Bar? If they do not, the independent Bar will dwindle and die. Nearly everyone concerned with the law agrees that the independent barrister, like the surgeon or specialist in medicine, is worth preserving. The Bar provides a high-quality, professional service of particular expertise which serves the consumer well.
Thirdly, the end of the independent Bar would be bound to mean higher legal costs. They would not be brought down, but driven up—as the figures I gave earlier show—for two reasons. The Bar enjoys lower overheads than many solicitors' practices, and the cab-rank principle provides a faster legal service, which means a cheaper legal service for the community.
Fourthly, the availability of lawyers in small towns and villages will diminish if solicitors, because of losing their conveyancing bread and butter, are forced to move to the bigger towns and cities to stay in practice. People living in small towns and villages would no longer find solicitors


easily available locally and would have to pay more to get to and to use the services of those in the bigger towns and cities.
Finally, the introduction of contingency fees, however gentle its proposal in the White Paper may be, would be likely to lead down the slippery slope of a doctrine of "win at all costs", which would considerably lower the integrity of the British legal system. Those who opposed the Green Papers took their stand on grounds of increased cost, the diminished availability of legal services and the lowering of quality.
The judges responded angrily and almost unanimously—though there was never any threat of strikes, as malicious voices in the media pretended. The judges were concerned that, according to the Green Papers, if rights of audience were extended to solicitors, the issuing of permits to practice advocacy in the higher courts would be by a state bureacracy, which would be wholly undesirable in principle, and possibly pernicious in practice.
In response to those strong criticisms, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said, "I am listening, and although I did not intend to give you a White Paper, I shall—so that you can consider my further thoughts. I will stick to my original intention to permit the right of audience in the higher courts to solicitors; to open up the restrictive practice of conveyancing by solicitors; and to introduce contingency fees because that change may give some people more access to lawyers and to justice." But my noble and learned Friend has in effect said, "I will leave the circumstances in which the solicitor will actually have a right of audience to the solicitors' professional organisation, to the predominantly lay advisory committee, and finally to the judges. I will also hedge about the conveyancing extension with certain protections for the lay client, who might otherwise receive no independent advice before buying a house."
The Bar's response was dynamic, statesmanlike and very constructive, and moved a long way to meeting the solicitors' profession without going so far as to concede the right of audience. The pace of reform undoubtedly quickened because of the Green Papers, and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is due considerable credit for that.
The Bar has proposed many reforms, and some of them are already in train. They are, for example, improving the vocational course at the Inns of Court school of law and of continuing legal education; overhauling the pupilage system, its payment, and the availability of tenancies in particular; the introduction of freedom for barristers to advertise; the establishment of an alternative to the chambers system, to provide cheaper, wider and better access by the public; easing the route by which a solicitor who wants to practise in the higher courts can easily become a barrister; and giving direct access to the Bar by professionals, so cutting out unnecessary activity by solicitors.
Apart from being the most far-reaching proposals ever set in motion in the legal profession, they do more to make legal services widely available at cheaper cost and without any reduction in quality than the Government's counter-productive proposals would ever achieve.
Now we have arrived at an impasse. The Government have placed responsibility for working out the rules for

extended rights of audience in the hands of the professions, the advisory committee and the judges. In effect, they kicked the ball into touch. The questions are whether judges will want to see rights of audience extended very far, and whether solicitors, or the Crown prosecution service, having won a victory in principle, will want to push the judges into conceding far wider rights of audience.
If little changes in practice and the Bar does not dwindle away, I will not feel that the whole exercise has been too disruptive. But if much changes in practice, either great harm will be done to the system or there will be warfare between the judges and the Government of a kind that cannot possibly be conducive to the proper administration of justice.
What, then, is to be done? As the House rises for the summer recess, I make three suggestions. First, between now and the final drafting of the Bill, I hope that the Lord Chancellor's Department will have further consultations with the Bar Council and the Law Society to see whether blood on the carpet can be avoided and the Bill drafted in a way that will maximise co-operation and minimise confrontation, which is what the Bar and most of us want.
Secondly, the Government should take another look at the extent to which the Bar's response will make for cheaper, more available and higher-quality legal activity.
Finally, the Government should consider just what it is that ordinary people complain about when they complain about lawyers. I suggest that they complain that they are too costly, which the Government's proposals will not remedy. They complain that the lawyers are not available when they want them, which, again, the Government's proposals will not, on balance, remedy. Ordinary people who have no great access to funds want more available legal aid. I agree that limitless legal aid is not desirable, but if, as Professor Cyril Glasser of London university assures us, 10 million people have dropped out of eligibility for legal aid in the past 10 years, a Government bent on wider access of the law to the consumer must at least look at legal aid before they seek refuge in divisive and counter-productive legislation.
As I said at the beginning, I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House to his new position, although I am sad that he left his previous one. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will bear in mind the points that I have made so that the best advantage can be secured from all the proposals for the future of our legal system.

Mr. David Winnick: The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in some respects made an interesting speech. He is a Conservative Member who, on every possible occasion, attacks restrictive practices, over-manning, and the rest. He does not have a sympathetic word for the dockers or anyone else. But when it comes to his own profession, the hon. and learned Member is steadfast in his defence of the existing position. No one could be a firmer defender of the status quo in the legal profession than the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The hon. and learned Gentleman may ask, "Why not?" He is a barrister and he considers that certain practices must be defended. I hope that on future occasions, when


some of my right hon. and hon. Friends try to describe the situation in industry and the viewpoint of the people who work in it, he will be a little more sympathetic.

Mr. Lawrence: rose——

Mr. Winnick: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way, because of the time limit. I understand the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to make.
I want to speak on a subject which directly concerned the Leader of the House in his previous position of Foreign Secretary. Before I do, I should say that the reshuffle will in no way change the deep-seated hostility that is felt in the country towards the Government's policies. High mortgage interest rates, the decline of the economy, the notorious poll tax—it is a poll tax; even the Government's literature refers to the "so-called" poll tax—water privatisation and the attack on the NHS all explain why there is such a deep-seated hostility to the Government. There is no doubt that, in the recent European elections, the Conservative party suffered badly.
The only other point that I want to make about the reshuffle is one on which many people have reflected and to which I referred during business questions. I am sure that many hon. Members will have heard a group of activists at a Conservative club on the radio this morning who were hostile to the Prime Minister. Some of them described her conduct as being like that of a dictator.
It is not for me, a mere Opposition Back Bencher, to defend the Home Secretary or the Leader of the House. If the Prime Minister wishes to treat her Cabinet colleagues in the way she has done, that is her business. If she has an irresistible desire to humiliate, as she undoubtedly has done, the Leader of the House and the Home Secretary, that is her right.
It is clear that the Home Secretary considered that his position was perfectly safe. We read in the press that he was eating his sandwiches on Monday, when, lo and behold, he heard various rumours that his job had been offered to the then Foreign Secretary despite his having been given all those private assurances by the Prime Minister.
I do not understand why Cabinet members are willing to put up with such conduct. The only possible explanation is that they believe that if they stood up to the Prime Minister they would lose their jobs more quickly than they otherwise would.
The views that I have just expressed are clearly the views of Conservative activists, and I imagine that, in the Corridors of this place, enough Conservative Members have been more or less saying in private what I have just said in public. It would be foolish to deny that.
The matter that I am about to raise is the one that I raised before the previous recess. I do not wish to be misunderstood in any way, and it is no reflection on my hon. Friends that at that time I was the only hon. Member to raise what was happening in China. I congratulated the people associated with the pro-democracy movement in China on their courage.
As I have said before, and I repeat now, it is all very well in a democracy to demonstrate. We know that sometimes the police can be rough, but there is all the difference between demonstrating in a democracy and trying to do so in a dictatorship. I have the greatest respect for those in dictatorship countries, in almost totalitarian conditions,

who are willing to do what the students and workers did in China. Those people were not saying that they wanted all the civil rights and liberties that Britain has gained and which exist in most, if not all, of the countries of western Europe. They wanted only some basic rights which were being denied them, so they demonstrated, and what an impressive demonstration it was. For weeks on end, they demonstrated in the way that we all saw on television. I say again that I have the greatest respect for them.
The manner in which that demonstration was crushed, the massacre that took place, aroused a feeling of revulsion not only in Britain but throughout most countries, and certainly throughout all the democracies.
The Chinese authorities peddled the lie—like Dr. Goebbels they no doubt believe that if they repeat the lie often enough people will believe it—that there was no massacre and demonstrators were not shot. We know that to be a lie. We know of the bloodshed and the hundreds of people who were massacred in Tiananmen square, and what happened on that occasion is never likely to be forgotten in China.
The time will come when we see in China what has happened in countries in eastern Europe. In 1956, the Hungarian uprising was crushed and Imre Nagy was hanged. Yet only a few weeks ago, his remains were buried with great honour. What happened in Hungary a few weeks ago is likely to happen at some stage in China.
In view of the experience of the Leader of the House as Foreign Secretary, I want to ask him what will be the attitude of the United Kingdom and the EEC if terror continues in China. There was a report in The Guardian today, and there have been other reports, one issued by Amnesty International, on the subject of the repression and the way in which people considered to be in any way involved with the pro-democracy movement are arrested, tortured, certainly humiliated and often executed.
Like all dictators, the Chinese leaders say that they want business to carry on as usual. They see no reason why western countries should take economic action against them. If the state of terror continues, can Britain and the European Community turn a blind eye and say that it is all very unfortunate, but we should have business as usual? A warning should go out from the Governments of the European Community and other countries—I only wish that the Soviet Union would associate itself with that—that if the Chinese authorities continue their repression of their own people economic action is bound to be taken.
I hope that, in the negotiations that I understand will take place between the new Foreign Secretary and the Chinese leadership, the point will be made clearly that, after 1997, Chinese troops should not be stationed in Hong Kong. One development above all else would give some feeling of security to the people of Hong Kong, leaving aside matters such as the right of abode, and that is the view that the state of terror and repression in China had ended. That would produce in Hong Kong a feeling of more security than exists at present.
There is ambiguity, to say the least, in the agreement signed between Britain and China over the stationing of Chinese troops. I hope that the point will be made clearly in the negotiations with the Chinese leadership that it would be quite inappropriate—all the more so after the terrible events of the past few weeks—for Chinese troops to be stationed in Hong Kong after 1997. If a guarantee could be given by the Chinese that no troops would be stationed there, it would do a great deal


of good in trying to reassure the people of Hong Kong that they have a future in that place once the agreement is implemented in 1997.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I can predict, sadly, that before Parliament meets again after the summer recess, many innocent people in Northern Ireland will have been slaughtered in obscene acts of terrorism. I ask hon. Members, therefore, to think about my part of the United Kingdom, which is haunted by the spectre of the terrorist.
Next month is the anniversary of the arrival in Northern Ireland 20 years ago of extra soldiers of the regular Army to be used to act as a barrier between religious groupings in different parts of the Province. It was not long before the soldiers, who were originally greeted as peacekeepers, were spat on, reviled, shot at and killed. Twenty years on, the situation is worse, although to a greater extent the Royal Ulster Constabulary are in the front line in the maintenance of law and order.
I want to pay tribute, as most hon. Members would want to do, to all the police officers and soldiers, both in the Regular Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment, who serve and have served in Northern Ireland where so many of their comrades have gallantly given their lives to save others and to defeat terrorism. Civilians—men, women and children—have also been injured, mutilated or killed, sometimes in the most terrible atrocities, although the Provisional IRA has not hesitated to destroy human life here in mainland Britain and on the continent. Every death is a tragedy. Throughout the Province, mothers, wives, children, husbands and fathers mourn the loss of loved ones who have died in such frightening circumstances; sadly, relatives here in Britain also mourn those who have been murdered by the evil and vicious members of the Provisional IRA.
To the outside world, Northern Ireland appears to be a war zone, where hate triumphs and people are bitterly divided into two warring camps. Those who live in Northern Ireland and those who visit Northern Ireland know differently. Northern Ireland is, despite its media image, a beautiful place, with charming and generous people. The majority of the people of Ulster wish to live normally and harmoniously with their neighbours, regardless of politics or religion. The vast majority reject the gunmen who live like parasites on their communities, whether in Republican or Loyalist areas.
The vast majority of Ulster people yearn for peace and the prosperity that peace will bring to that battered part of the United Kingdom. I think especially of senior citizens in the community who fervently wish to see an end to strife before they die. I think above all about the young generation who are being denied the normal opportunities which peace can provide—many of whom, through frustration, seek employment here in England or elsewhere.
The people and politicians of Northern Ireland cannot defeat the terrorists, but they can make a significant contribution to the elimination of terrorism by giving their full, unqualified and unequivocal support to the forces of law and order. The politicians have a major role to play in the restoration of normality. They should make a contribution, but the people also have a contribution to

make and they must endeavour at all times to ensure that, wherever a terrorist roams, the police are notified of his activities.
I call on all constitutional politicians in Northern Ireland to get together to see what political progress can be made in the next six months. I know that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is a symbol of the betrayal of Unionists by a Conservative Government, but politicians cannot for ever remain in their trenches. I appeal, therefore, in this House to politicians, to official Unionists, to Democratic Unionists, to the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Alliance party and all other constitutional politicians, to suspend their antagonism and to begin to talk.
The appointment of a new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland provides an ideal opportunity to end the four years of political stagnation which existed under his predecessor. That change of Ulster Secretary should be the cue for Ulster politicians to come together. I have already offered through the media in Northern Ireland to chair such discussions, as the former Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I shall shortly be writing to the leaders of the constitutional parties that were elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Of course it is easier not to talk. It is not difficult to find excuses to justify a refusal to get together. Talking with other constitutional politicians exposes one to criticism and perhaps even to charges of betrayal. However, in my judgment, politicians, in the interests of Ulster people young and old, must get together, must risk attacks, must endure insults and must attempt to devise a solution that would enable political progress to be made in Northern Ireland.
I am sure that there is tremendous good will in the Province. As I said earlier, I know that the people of Northern Ireland are marvellous, generous, charming, humorous and kind-hearted. It is extraordinary that some can hate each other out of their love of God. For the love of God, let us start building bridges, talking together, making peace and providing a future for the young people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ray Powell: I share the sentiments expressed in the last part of the speech made by the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder). The message must go out not only to hon. Members but to politicians elsewhere and people everywhere that it is high time that a solution was found in Ireland.
The motion before us calls upon us to adjourn for the summer recess. I am always concerned that such debates do not allow us a vote. Some Conservative Members ask for time to debate major issues and then, a soon as they have finished their speech, they get through the door, pick up their cases and go to Heathrow for their flights to Bermuda. I am not one who would do that.
I call for special consideration to be given to the question that this House should not adjourn. I do so because I want time to be allowed for a debate that Welsh Members have been demanding for the past five or six weeks—a debate on the National Health Service in Wales. We have asked, we have begged and we have pleaded. I did not say this at business questions, when I asked the Leader of the House a question regarding his new appointment, but I welcome him to his position as Leader of the House because, as a Welshman, he might be more sympathetic to


our demands in the future—especially our demands for health debates. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will he dealing with a Secretary of State for Wales who has not been elected to represent a Welsh seat and who is probably more interested in representing his own constituency, which is Worcester.
We have asked for a debate on the National Health Service in Wales not only because of the long waiting lists or the under-funding of hospital services in Wales but because we fear the Government's new proposals and their effect on our constituents. In 1988, when we debated hospital waiting lists in Wales, we were promised that various sums would be invested in new hospitals and in reducing waiting lists. I regret to report that waiting lists in Wales have not been reduced since that promise was made in 1988. As a matter of fact, they have substantially increased. That is one reason why I think that the House should not adjourn.
We should be considering the thousands of people who are waiting for hospital beds, for hospital treatment or for consultants to be available to perform major surgery which may save their lives. Many people who are now waiting for hospital treatment will no longer require it when the time comes, because they will have passed away, as has happened to a number of my constituents who were in that position.
The Welsh group of Labour Members of Parliament tabled an early-day motion, which said:
That this House notes that on March 1st, 1989, the Secretary of State for Wales told the House that he was about to issue papers, similar to those issued for England, setting out his proposals for the implementation of the Health Service White Paper in Wales, that thereafter he would issue papers of specific Welsh proposals, and that there would be plenty of time for discussion during which he would be anxious to hear the views of hon. Members in all parts of the House; further notes that comment from all levels of the health service and from the general public in Wales amounts to outright rejection of the White Paper proposals; and calls on the Secretary of State either to withdraw the White Paper proposals from having any application to Wales or to take immediate steps to honour his three-fold pledge of March 1st and allow full debate on his proposals within Wales.
Since then, we have received documents from the Royal College of Nursing documents about NHS funding and documents about the crisis in the acute hospital sector. We have had comments from a research team dealing with matters affecting elderly people and the review of March 1989.
Will the Leader of the House bring pressure to bear on the Secretary of State for Wales—whom he will be joining as yet another wet in the Cabinet, no doubt—to ensure that in future, when we request debates on major issues such as this, we are afforded the opportunity to have them, bearing in mind that, of 38 Welsh MPs, 25 are Labour Members? Surely that is sufficient to allow us a debate when we request one.
It is no good the Secretary of State for Wales hiding behind all sorts of excuses, as he has been doing for weeks now. I renew my request, which is supported by all my hon. Friends, that the documents should be published—as promised on 1 March—explaining how the Secretary of State for Wales intends to apply the White Paper in Wales and that we may have an early opportunity for a full debate. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) need not get all excited. I have not finished yet. I was told 10 minutes, and I have only taken four so far.

Mr. Keith Raffan: Eight.

Mr. Powell: All right; it is eight.
There are many Health Service matters that I could raise, and I am sure that I should receive a sympathetic hearing from the Leader of the House, given that he was born in Port Talbot.
Another major issue that the House should debate before we go into recess is the enforcement of the Shops Act 1950. The House had an opportunity for a full debate, action was taken and a proposal presented by the Government. We won that debate, although I am sorry to say that that is the only time in 10 years when the majority of Members have rejected major legislation that the Prime Minister and the Government wanted to introduce. Although we rejected any amendment to the 1950 Act, we constantly see traders, large and small, trading on Sundays and thus deliberately flouting the law. When I asked the Prime Minister a question some years ago, she replied that she would ensure that all the laws of the country were upheld. Why is not the law on Sunday trading given the same consideration by magistrates, courts, judges and chairmen of magistrates courts, to ensure that it is enforced?
Let me ask the Leader of the House three specific questions. First, what action does he think the Attorney-General is taking to ensure compliance with the law, concerning the admitted illegal Sunday opening by Heal's and Habitat, both shops in the Storehouse group? Secondly, will he ask the Attorney-General whether he will now consider prosecuting the chairman, chief executive and other members of the Storehouse group under the aiding and abetting provision of section 44 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980, concerning the admitted flagrant breaches of the Shops Act 1950 by Heal's and Habitat shops? Thirdly, in the light of the ruling on 27 June 1989 by the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, what guidance will the Attorney-General now consider giving to local authorities about their statutory duty to enforce the law on Sunday trading? I would like answers to those questions when the Leader of the House replies.
The House should not adjourn because we have not yet debated the major reform in legislation protecting children—the people in this country who have no rights or proper opportunities to advance their own cases. When can we have an early debate on the Children Bill? What will happen to the family courts which have been requested? I know that 10,000 grandparents have been pleading for their rights as grandparents to be legally represented at court to allow them to plead for their grandchildren. We should debate those matters; we should not adjourn until October while all those grandparents and children are not protected by the laws of this country. It is high time that action was taken to remedy that failure.

Mr. Jim Lester: My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House is very welcome in his new position on the Government Front Bench because we know of his considerable sympathies for the individual. Like the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), I want to propose that the House should not adjourn for the summer recess. However, if we get our way, I am sure that we would be the most unpopular Members of Parliament ever and would probably act as leads for the return of capital punishment.
The House should not adjourn until there has been an environmental audit in my constituency. Although I have every confidence in the new Secretary of State for the Environment and his team, what is happening in my constituency is an extreme example of what might be happening elsewhere in the country. The events in my constituency will affect my constituents profoundly over the weeks, months and years ahead.
Many of my constituents who have made plans for the future, and other long-established communities, feel trapped by a steamroller of inevitability which crushes their views and faith in democracy and their ability to influence their own destinies. In these green days, people talk about the rape of the countryside. I want to draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House to the fact that there is a multiple rape in my constituency. Four environmental hazards in one constituency are excessive by any standards.
Unknown until the beginning of this month, a proposal has come to light to add a further option to the A453 access route to Nottingham. That new option is known as the green route. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) in his former capacity as the Minister for Roads and Traffic, and said:
I am now horrified to discover that a quite unacceptable new proposal described as the Green Route running from Barton past Clifton Wood and over a new bridge to Beeston has been added to the alternative proposals. Everyone familiar with the debate over the years has always expected that the choice would lie between what is now called the Red Route through Clifton and the Yellow Route which would be a Clifton Bypass between Clifton and Ruddington. I did not know that your engineers were working up another proposition as an alternative to those two. I hope that the Green Route will not complicate the arguments for very long, because as shown on your plans, it would be an environmental disaster.
I can only agree with that completely. People in Beeston Rylands purchased their houses beside the river and the canal. Those are modest, not grand, houses and their owners value their valley and their environment enormously, as do all the other people who use the Trent valley as a recreational area.
There are three proposals to opencast the spine of the Erewash valley. If the proposals go forward, my constituents in relatively close communities can look forward to 20 years of development involving dust, dirt and the total destruction of their landscape in a completely unnecessary way. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) shares my views on that.
At a recent exhibition, the Coal Board called the first proposed site for opencasting the "Engine lane" site, which will involve the dereliction of the Moorgreen colliery which is famous in D. H. Lawrence's work because he based many of his stories there. British Coal does not reveal that the other four fifths of the area is known as Beauvale—obviously it has that name because it is very beautiful. Those who are familiar with Lawrence's work will be aware of his contrast between the industrialised east side of the area with its pit, and Hagg's farm and going to Miriam to escape the awful pressures of the industrial revolution. British Coal now wants to introduce a modern industrial revolution into an area which, even in Lawrence's day, was not touched. British Coal is talking about a five-year development in a tiny community. The

development would involve 52 lorry movements a day on a B road, causing dust, dirt and the total destruction of the environment.
The next site for opencast development is called the Shilo north site, which affects the villages and small towns of Kimberley, Eastwood and Awsworth. The site is at the bottom of the valley. I agree with the comments in the Nottingham Evening Post which stated:
I applaud the campaign by the Shilo North Action Group to preserve their locality. A vast gaping hole torn in the earth, destroying the essence of the countryside, is too great a price to pay for coal we don't urgently need. I can imagine the outcry should Stratford or Constable country be threatened in this way.
The third site due for development is known as Robinettes. It will affect the villages of Cossoll and Awsworth. That area is close to Nottingham, but is green land offering great recreational opportunities. There are many farms in the area, and it has not been touched by the industrial revolution, but it is now being sized and drilled in another proposal to rip up the land and terrify the local community through a long process of destruction and potential dereliction.
All the local communities are firmly opposed to those environmental hazards. Broxtowe district council, Nottingham county council, the protest groups and I have joined together as we grind our way through the due processes of planning and public inquiries.
I want to give my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House a flavour of what this means to so many people who cannot sell their houses. I am not talking about the great and the good; I am talking about people in normal small terraced houses who face the long prospect of the real difficulties in their personal lives.
We all accept that, in a developing society, we cannot stand still. However, before we can accept the degree of environmental dereliction that I have described, we must be sure that the need for it is critical. No one is sure that the need for opencast coal is that critical. A balance is essential. There is a price which we must be very careful not to pay in terms of people's environmental privilege, for which no compensation can be paid.
I will end with a quotation from the Nottingham Evening Post "Comment" written by Suzanne Kirk:
We are rapidly approaching a crisis point. It seems more change has taken place over the last 20 to 30 years than during the rest of history.
The undistinguished Erewash Valley, although not mentioned in any tourist guides, is very special to the people of West Nottinghamshire.
The abundant wildlife, tranquil foot paths and panoramic views make it a place to escape to—but not one for much longer if British Coal's plans to outcrop the valley succeed.

Mr. Pat Wall: During business questions last week I referred to a Chinese dissident, Xu Hai Ning, who returned to China about 10 days ago. I received a brief answer from the Home Office, but I have had no opportunity further to pursue the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has also referred to this issue. This subject is apposite, as the former Foreign Secretary will reply to the debate.
I am a frequent and, on occasions, vehement critic of the way in which the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office deal with numerous immigration cases in my constituency, but I have nothing but praise for the Home Office staff who have dealt with this case. I make


no criticism about that person's return to China. When we phoned the Home Office we got very good support from the staff. Mr. Xu was interviewed at the airport on his way back to China. He was seen on his own, and attempts were made to allow him to ask for protection if he had any objection to going back. I mention this case because it raises one or two matters in which the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can be of assistance.
When I interviewed him in the House of Commons a fortnight ago, Mr. Xu was distraught and unsure of his status here. He had been granted leave to stay in Britain for 12 months. In the circumstances, that decision was reasonable. He was concerned about having no travel documents, about what would happen at the end of the 12 months, and about his ability to take up employment, become a student, and so on during his stay. Dissidents who come to this country are often highly emotional and could he helped by proper counselling.
I am somewhat disturbed about advertisements that were placed in a Chinese business newspaper published in Soho and about accusations that Chinese diplomatic staff in this country have been phoning people to find the addresses of safe houses, saying that they have messages from their family—in other words, putting pressure on them. I realise that it is difficult to deal with advertisements, phone calls and, possibly following people and searching out safe houses, but people need the maximum possible protection.
It is 148 years since Britain obtained part of the colony of Hong Kong through two treaties and a leasing deal that was made in 1886. Those treaties were unfairly imposed on China because China was dominated by Britain and other imperial powers at the time. Since then, the vast majority of Chinese people in Hong Kong have had no say in the running of the country, the distribution of its wealth or their own future. Much has been made of the so-called Hong Kong economic miracle. It is no miracle. Hong Kong is one of a small number of countries—for example, Singapore, Taiwan and, formerly, South Korea—that enjoy a privileged position in free trade. It has had a compliant, cheap labour force and the advantage of massive international capital investment, in particular in Hong Kong by America, Japan and Britain. Investors have had a free hand to exploit a tremendously hard-working and compliant population who, in turn, have been denied any real democratic or trade union rights.
It is true that the majority of people in Hong Kong enjoy a far higher standard of living than those in the rest of China. That is hardly surprising considering their trade advantages, the fact that China was ruled for centuries by emperors and warlords, was pillaged by a variety of imperialist powers, was devastated during the Japanese invasion and the civil war of 1945–49, and that the majority of the population were uneducated, extremely poor peasants. Hong Kong falls far short of being a so-called capitalist paradise.
Several hon. Members have lived in Hong Kong. Many others have visited it with parliamentary delegations. Others like myself have visited the colony during their previous employment. However, few hon. Members have had an opportunity to see the sweated labour conditions that exist in many factories and workplaces in Hong Kong. They see an entirely different side of Hong Kong—the good houses in Repulse bay and the better areas of Hong Kong. They see the private clubs that are enjoyed by

British and European people and by some of the richer Chinese. They see the fabulous hotels, nightclubs and bars. Very few have spent a weekend with an ordinary Chinese family and travelled in a plywood-sided lift to the 15th floor of a 20-floor block, which is one of 20 or 30 similar skyscrapers in one housing development.
Few people have taken any interest in seeing the thousands of people who pour from the workplaces at lunchtime to eat their lunches in the shanty canteens that line the roads. Few appreciate the pollution and overcrowding in the streets or see the conditions of the boat people—not just Vietnamese boat people, but Chinese boat people—who eke out their lives in the typhoon basins of Hong Kong. That is the reality of life for most Chinese people in Hong Kong.
I accompanied an injured colleague to hospital at 3 o'clock one morning in Hong Kong. I will not describe what it was like going into the hospital and the interviews that one had to have with the police. However, we ended up in the ward. I had never seen anything like it in my life. It was a typical rectangular hospital ward. The four sides of the ward were lined with beds touching each other, and, in front of the beds, were camp beds, also touching each other. Seated in hospital chairs were people with drips in their arms and noses. All the lights were on at 5 o'clock in the morning. Two arguments were taking place. There may be private hospitals for the rich in Hong Kong, but that is the standard of treatment for many ordinary people.
The debate on the return of Hong Kong to China was a golden opportunity for the majority of Chinese people to have the right to a say for the first time in how the colony is run, how its wealth is distributed, and what its future should be. If universal sufferage had been granted to everybody over the age of 18, Chinese people could really say what their wishes are. Hon. Members have debated Chinese people's right of abode, but, to a large extent, it is a side issue. An old friend of mine who has carried on business in Hong Kong for 15 years has recently returned. He wrote:
Numerous people I have spoken to over the last few days, from taxi drivers to industrialists, have used almost the same words to me: 'They are shooting my people! Why did they have to do such a terrible thing?' I must say that I think there is now a considerable risk of civil unrest in Hong Kong, depending on events in China, British reaction to those events, and the short-term political evolution of the very broadly-based movement within Hong Kong.
My friend went on to talk about the right to abode. The right to abode has been wrongly tackled in the House. The 3·5 million people in the Irish Republic and 1·5 million people in Northern Ireland have the right of abode, given the possibility of an Armageddon or a Beirut-type situation developing in Northern Ireland. Also, 270 million people in the Common Market have the right, of abode in this country. People in Hong Kong had that right of abode up to 1962. My view is that the granting of the right of abode to Hong Kong citizens would diffuse the situation and would concentrate the mind not on that issue, but on the much more important issues which concern relationships with China and the democratic rights in Hong Kong.
The Chinese claim that theirs is a Socialist Government, a Socialist society and that they are Communists. However, as a lifelong Socialist and an unashamed Marxist, I believe that a river of blood separates Stalinism from real Socialism. The events in


China, the appalling events in Soviet labour camps, the massacre during the Hungarian revolution and the events in Czechoslovakia have nothing to do with my ideas of Socialism.
I can recall walking off a mountainside in Hong Kong with a Chinese friend, past a filthy, horrible, degrading and disgusting squatter camp, and seeing coming out of that camp two small children, aged about five years and two years. They were dressed in immaculate pyjamas. They were doing their ablutions brushing their teeth and washing themselves at a standpipe that the local authority had erected at the side of that squatters camp. That was a touching scene. However, what it brought home to me was not how nice and beautiful those little children were, but the resolve of their parents, living under that filth and horror, to keep those children decent and to strive to find a better way of life. That is the real side of humanity, which the Chinese rulers will realise when the Chinese people rise again, as they will, and end for ever the totalitarian system there, as I hope one day we will end the inequalities that exist in capitalist society throughout the world.

Mr. Keith Raffan: I begin by referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will not be seduced by the legendary charm and the equally legendary scant respect for the facts of that hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Ogmore knows as well as I do that it was open to the Labour party to choose to debate earlier this year the subject of the National Health Service in Wales in the Welsh Grand Committee, but it did not choose to do so. It was equally open to the Labour party to debate that matter on one or part of one of its many Opposition supply days in the House, but it did not do so. It had those opportunities, but it did not take them. The hon. Gentleman, therefore, cannot complain about the lack of opportunity for a debate on the National Health Service in Wales during this current session. Indeed, so enthusiastic was the Welsh Labour party for the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee that at this stage of the Session we have had one fewer debate than usual.
I assure the hon. Member for Ogmore that, far from being reluctant to debate the subject of the National Health Service in Wales, Conservative Members are exceedingly keen to do so. How can we be otherwise, when there has been in real terms a 40 per cent. increase in expenditure on the National Health Service in Wales in the past 10 years? If the record of the Government on spending on the National Health Service in England and Wales has been good, in the Principality it has been remarkable.
I wish to raise an issue that I have already raised twice today in questions both to my right hon. and learned Friend during business questions and to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, during his statement on food safety—the serious salmonella poisoning outbreak in my constituency in north Wales and in other parts of the north-west. The severity of the situation can be measured by the fact that there are 53 suspected cases of salmonella poisoning in Clwyd; 29 of those have been confirmed bacteriologically, 13 people have been admitted to hospital and, tragically, one person has died.
I pay fulsome tribute to Delyn borough council and Clwyd health authority for the thorough way in which they have investigated the outbreak so that within a short period they were able to track down the source. The suspected food was withdrawn from sale, the production of cooked meat by the company implicated in the outbreak was halted, and distribution of the food was suspended. A list of outlets has also been supplied to all environmental health departments and visits are being undertaken as quickly as possible to those outlets. The health authority has also, of course, given advice to the public about ready-cooked and prepared meats.
I have no doubt that Delyn borough council, as the public health authority, has taken all the appropriate steps, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence available, to contain the outbreak. However, I want to draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend, which I know he will in turn bring to the attention of his colleagues, the problem the council faces. I raised this problem this afternoon with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The council, as public health authority, finds itself in a dilemma in deciding whether to name the company suspected of being implicated in the outbreak, because it has at present only circumstantial evidence and must wait several days for that evidence to be backed up and confirmed by medical and scientific analyses. As soon as the investigation was initiated into the outbreak, faecal and food samples and swabs were taken from potential suspects and sent to the public health laboratory for analysis.
I welcomed the Welsh Office's decision today to issue a food hazard notice naming the company which is believed to be involved, in the interests of consumer safety, and also to list the various outlets for prepared and cooked meat originating from that company. In the event of an outbreak of this kind, it is important that we not only have full and effective co-operation between the relevant health and local authorities, but that there is also a clear chain of responsibility. I believe that ultimately the onus must be on the health authority to decide whether or not to name a company which it has good reason to believe is implicated—perhaps 60 or 75 per cent. certain—even though it has not received medical and scientific back-up. When there is such an outbreak, time is of the essence. It is very important that the name of the company is disclosed to the public so that those shops which sell food originating from the company can withdraw that food from sale and those who have bought suspected food can see their doctors as soon as possible.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will bring that matter to the attention of the Cabinet sub-committee on food safety which, because of its importance, is chaired by our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. When we come to legislate on these matters in the autumn, it is important that we cover the "chain of command" in such an outbreak, the relationship between the Government, the health authorities and the local councils as public health authorities.
I understand from those whom I have spoken to in the past few days that the first suspected case was notified to Delyn borough council's environmental health department on Tuesday 20 July. Clwyd health authority informed me that the first it knew of the outbreak was when the first patient was hospitalised on Saturday 22 July. I do not criticise anyone at this juncture. The important thing is to help all those who are dealing with


this difficult and serious situation and who are doing their utmost to contain it and get it under control. But it is important for the Welsh Office to ensure that all available information is provided to the Clwyd health authority and to the neighbouring health authorities as soon as possible. That is a must if the community physicians are to be able to do their job, to contact potential suspects and take samples from them.
Earlier, I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to consider issuing guidelines to butchers and delicatessens on cooked and raw meat. As the Institution of Environmental Health Officers said in the press today, it is important that raw and cooked meats are not allowed to stand near each other and that the same machinery is not used to slice them.
When we had the serious salmonella outbreak connected with eggs at the end of last year, the Ministry was not slow to issue the necessary guidelines. The chief medical officer of health issued advice to consumers on salmonella in eggs and poultry. Codes of practice were issued to producers and National Health Service hospitals were rightly briefed on the cooking of foods involving eggs. The Ministry must now seriously consider issuing guidance to butchers, delicatessens and consumers.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food undertook quite a devastating survey of domestic kitchen hygiene. It showed that consumers have an important part to play in reducing the risk of food poisoning. It revealed that consumers do not normally read the storage instructions on chilled or frozen pre-packed foods; that 94 per cent. of respondents never checked the temperature of their refrigerator; that 66 per cent. never adjusted its temperature control; and that only 18 per cent. appreciated the hazard of keeping food at room temperature for prolonged periods.
It is equally important to embark on a renewed campaign of public awareness—following the one earlier this year. This is especially important given the extraordinary hot weather that we are currently experiencing—so that people are made aware of the importance of separating cooked and raw meats in their fridges and of ensuring that their refrigerators are at the necessary low temperature.
The Government have acted promptly, swiftly and efficiently on food safety, but it must worry all hon. Members that the number of cases of salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 increased from seven to 109 between 1964 and 1974 and increased sharply from 1,362 in 1984 to 12,522 in 1988. Those figures originate from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I warmly welcome the White Paper and look forward to an early debate and early legislation on these matters in the new Session. I hope, in the meantime, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will bring the points that I have made to the attention of not only the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but the Secretary of State for Wales, who is responsible for agriculture and food in the Principality. I would also ask that the guidance to butchers and delicatessens I mentioned is issue as soon as possible.
I hope that the Cabinet sub-committee on food safety will give urgent attention to ensuring that in the event of an outbreak there is in future a clear chain of responsibility and command; that all the authorities involved co-operate

fully and effectively; and that there is no delay in naming a company that is clearly implicated, on sufficient circumstantial evidence, in a serious outbreak.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I should like to raise a couple of issues before the House adjourns. The Government have not taken adequate steps to deal with environmental issues in the environmental Bill proposed for the autumn, or to deal with water quality control and the proposals for the Nature Conservancy Council.
Will the Leader of the House assure me that the Secretary of State for the Environment will respond to the challenge of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to publish the proposals that will be included in the environmental Bill before the autumn so that hon. Members can try to achieve consensus on them? Hon. Members who are genuinely concerned about improving the environment want to achieve consensus. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland has made a generous offer, but consensus will not be achieved unless hon. Members are aware of the Bill's provisions and what is the Government's line of thinking.
I am concerned about how the Nature Conservancy Council is being run. The proposals for its restructuring have not been thought out, and the NCC was not consulted on them. The first that it heard about them was when it was announced in the press that the previous Secretary of State for the Environment intended to merge it with the Countryside Commission and break up its functions.
I must express my concern at how the NCC was directed by the previous Secretary of State, who appeared to be directly involved in altering its role and direction, especially on field and blood sports. He appointed a number of new members to the NCC in March, among whom were two landowning earls—one maintained a large grouse moor and the other was a master of foxhounds. Although I am sure that they are worthy individuals, they do not seem compatible with our premier organisation for nature conservation. One of the NCC's staff said:
I cannot imagine what some of these people, however worthy they arc, are going to do for nature conservation, as opposed to the interests of landowners and grouse shooters.
Many people are concerned about the NCC being manipulated by people who are not sympathetic to the environment or to the nature conservation ideals that many share. An example was when the previous Secretary of State said that the NCC should take into account what he termed "traditional country sports" before it gave grants for the purchase of land.
The NCC signed an agreement with various shooting organisations on what it termed "areas of common interest", under which a grant was given to Kent wildfowlers to purchase an area to shoot wildfowl. I accept that wildfowling is a legitimate interest and pastime, but I am not sure that it is the role of the NCC to give public funds to wildfowling organisations for them to pursue their interests.
That should be contrasted with the way in which other organisations have been treated when applying for grants. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds applied for a 50 per cent. grant to extend its nature reserve in Nene washes, Cambridgeshire. The NCC told the RSPB that it


would not be given a grant unless it allowed shooting on its nature reserve. Shooting and a nature reserve are incompatible, so the society proceeded without a grant.
The NCC negotiated with landowners on the Solway firth to buy their shooting rights for £750,000. The EEC, because of the international importance of the Solway firth for wintering wildfowl, was prepared to pay 50 per cent. of that sum. I understand that the previous Secretary of State spent some time shooting in that area and that when he heard about this deal he intervened and instructed the NCC to scrap it. The 50 per cent. grant, which was not an inconsiderable amount, was lost to that major conservation area.
People who get their pleasure from chasing innocent animals to death or torturing them have no place in such organisations. They would be better off seeking psychiatric or medical help than being involved in conservation bodies as a way of pursuing their pastimes. The NCC should not be involved in that role.
I do not object, and most reasonable people would not object, to the NCC being broken up on a regional basis, with one council for Scotland and one for Wales. There is nothing wrong with that, but its national structure must be safeguarded. The NCC has funded long-term research projects, such as the common bird census, constant effort sites and the national ringing programme. The main agency is the British Trust for Ornithology which is negotiating a new five-year contract with the NCC. The work must be funded, controlled and monitored nationally.
Furthermore, the NCC must have real influence and control over its work. I am worried that attempts are being made to dilute it. I have already explained the effect of the previous Secretary of State's appointments. In Scotland, the NCC has come into conflict with local landowners and regional councils on several issues. In the flow country, the NCC has rightly held out against extensive planting of trees in an area of international importance which has never in its history been planted with conifers. The planting of conifers is alien to the habitat and landscape.
There is conflict about the development of the Cairngorms and the extension of the ski lift and skiing facilities into Lurchers gully. The regional council has tried to change its structure plan to allow that to happen even though that proposal was defeated in a public inquiry a few years ago. There is much conflict about grants for planting trees in Scotland where 90 per cent. of new planting is conifers.
If the NCC is broken up, will the Scottish NCC be dominated by Scottish landowners who are involved in tree-planting, grouse moors and shooting? What confidence can we have that the NCC in the hands of such people will fulfil its role? The position is serious when one considers that some parts of Scotland should have a certain breed of bird of prey—the hen harrier—but do not. Where they have tried to nest and establish themselves, local gamekeepers have illegally put down poisoned baits, or, in a recent case, shot the sitting bird on the nest and stabbed the young into the ground. Will such people be appointed to the NCC? Can we have confidence in them to protect our wildlife?
Wildlife is not just there for aesthetic purposes. It is a biological indicator. What happens to wildlife is a sign of

what is happening to the health of our environment, as we saw in the 1960s with the effect of DDT on animal species in the food chain.
In my area there is great anxiety about the levels of pollution in the River Humber. The flora and fauna are particularly impoverished in the upper reaches. That is because of excessive pollution which the Government have made little attempt to control The position will be made worse by the proposals in the Water Bill, as sewerage works are given permission to carry on polluting the river at levels far higher than the EEC agreed maximums. Other industrial outflows will also exceed the maximums, yet sufficient action is not being taken to tackle the problem.
A document has been leaked to me. Unfortunately the identification marks have all been removed, so that I cannot tell where it came from. It is a scientific survey of the Humber. It draws attention to some of the main problems, which must be tackled as a matter of priority. It identifies that at certain times of river flow and high temperatures there is a complete lack of oxygen in the vicinity of the Trent falls. The document states that oxygen levels in the mid and lower Humber are of concern in summer resulting from a significant input of organic matter, sewage. That means that at certain periods of the year or indeed of the month, some stretches of the Humber are biologically dead. Life cannot exist there. It is a barrier to the migration of fish upriver. Pollution has reached such levels that there is no oxygen.
The document continues:
Compared with other estuaries the fauna … is extremely limited in terms of the number of species found.
The Ouse system was originally a prolific salmon fishery, fish being taken regularly … along a considerable length of the system. Whilst very occasionally fish get through the estuary, commercial fishing is non-existent. The decline is attributable in the main to lack of oxygen.
There is very little information of a reliable nature on the concentrations of heavy metals in the estuary. There is no systematically collected data available as to the concentrations of alien, man-made organic contaminants in the estuary. No baseline data on which to base predictions of true nature and impact of man's activities on the estuary.
Recently Greenpeace took samples in the Humber which showed alarmingly high levels of heavy metal contaminants from various sources. The document states:
Measurements of Arsenic have shown that the concentration of this element is significantly increased in the neighbourhood of Read's island emanating from Cappa Pass on the North Bank of the Humber.
There are 216 potentially polluting discharges to the tidal waters of the Humber, 67 to the Ouse system, 70 to the Trent and 79 to Hull and Humber.
Acid iron waste discharged from two titanium dioxide plants (Tioxide UK Ltd. and the SCM Corporation) affects an area of the Humber in excess of 17 km. Every other nation in Europe has taken steps to reduce emissions from this internationally recognised polluting industry.
It is true that we have recently debated EEC directives about controlling emissions from titanium dioxide, but little progress appears to have been made and the steps that have been taken have been far too late.
The document mentions that a disease called epidermal papilloma in dab is as high in the Dogger bank area just off Humberside as it is in the German bight. The document suggests that in November 1984, upon completion of a report on this matter, the Government were so alarmed that they immediately drew up plans to terminate the dumping of sewage and industrial waste. As far as I know,


that has never been carried out. Industrial waste and sewage sludge are still being dumped in the North sea off the Humber, with the results that we have seen.
The Government have not tackled the problem of the environment or the issue of the NCC. To break it up would be a retrograde step. It needs the reassurance that I have outlined. Many organisations are watching the Government carefully on these issues and they want some action.

Mr. John Bowis: I am not sure what a Leader of the House does during the summer recess. I suspect that he puts his feet up. I am sure that a deputy Prime Minister does no such thing, but races round keeping his colleagues in order. That is what I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to do with two sets of his colleagues.
The first are his colleagues in the arts, the Department of the Environment and the Treasury on the matter dealt with by early-day motion 1179 on the English National Opera and the English National Ballet, formerly the London Festival Ballet. If we do not find a solution to their funding problem within the next month we shall have serious trouble keeping those two excellent national institutions in being. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will take that on board and ensure that we find a solution during the recess.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will also pursue his colleagues in the Department of Transport. An advantage of the type of life and hours that we in the House have is that we usually go home long after the traffic jams have ended. Last night, however, even after 11 o'clock, the traffic jams were by no means at an end in London, and the A3 was blocked solid.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend, perhaps no longer being burdened with international travel, will experience some of the domestic forms of travel—or perhaps I should say, the inability to travel—that Londoners have faced for many years. If he would care to visit south London, I will take him on a slow guided tour round the traffic jams and blocked bus lanes and then, if he has an hour or two to spare, I will accompany him down to a couple of stations on the Northern line, and then to an area where neither the Northern line nor the District line or any other Underground line runs. That might lead us to try some of the railway stations in my part of the world. Although trains run there, they do so with inadequate numbers of coaches, so that when they pull in at stations the passengers fall out rather than try to get in.
Having experienced some of the delights of travelling around south London and having sat in traffic jams, my right hon. and learned Friend will doubtless return to his colleagues at the Department of Transport and ask, "What are we to do about this problem?" The officials in that Department will tell him, "We are thinking of putting some more traffic into the area." That represents the real problem at which I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will look. The Government, having rightly listened to people such as I who call attention to transport problems in London, invited consultants to come up with some analyses of the problems and then to put forward some solutions.
The solutions that are being suggested would drive not coaches and horses through London—if only that were the

case—but major roads through London, knocking clown houses on the way, carving through common land and introducing yet more traffic into London. As those of us who understand a little of traffic engineering and mathematics and a lot about the burdens and desires of our constituents know, more roads result in more traffic. Even worse, bigger roads result in bigger volumes of traffic. Faster roads do not produce faster traffic but result in moving traffic faster into traffic jams. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will encourage his colleagues in the Department of Transport to drop those schemes.
The first scheme that might be dropped is a project known as weir, which should have a "d" at the end. The words which form the acronym weir include the word "improvement." It is known as the western environmental improvement route. It is difficult to appreciate what the project would achieve, for the road would be a great hazard to the people of Hammersmith, depositing traffic at a great rate of knots—about 11,000 additional vehicles a day—on to the river embankment, where it would have nowhere to go except on to the overcrowded roads of Wandsworth. We are told that it would produce an increase of 27 per cent. in traffic volume and that it would not be a motorway but only a small road that would use a railway line that is no longer needed.
We are told not to worry about what is proposed. We are bound to worry because it is destined to bring 85,000 vehicles a day along that stretch of road to the river. That number of vehicles is as much as the elevated section of the M4 can carry, and it is probably the heaviest used two-lane motorway in Britain. If it is not a motorway, I am not sure what it is. It has all the appearance of a motorway. There are no cyclists or pedestrians allowed on it and there are no junctions of the non-motorway type. It brings all the traffic to my part of the world. I hope that that road scheme will be the first to be thrown out, and thereafter the other schemes and option that have been put to the Department of Transport should also be thrown out.
Our road problems are due to the history of London, which was designed largely for the narrow gauge cart and its horse. The problems are increasing because of London's increased prosperity. There are other ways of achieving the solutions we need, and I hope that careful consideration will be given to the four-borough alternative that has been put forward by the boroughs of Richmond, Wandsworth, Hammersmith and Lambeth. That four-borough, three-party scheme looks to public transport as a solution to London's traffic problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) along with myself and others have brought forward the scheme of red routing, a plan that would enormously help the flow of traffic in London and would stop thoughtless and selfish parking or waiting on roads. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House, referred earlier to the Serjeant at Arms and to this place having wig, pen and sword. I would use all three of those on motorists who park thoughtlessly on some through routes into London.
Aside from that and some minor improvements. such as widening or straightening roads, it is clear that providing more and bigger roads is not the answer. We must deter people from using roads to come into London, including stopping firms providing car parking spaces. The City of London follows that course to a certain extent and I should like to see the rest of London doing the same. Much would be achieved quickly by improving public transport.


If we had better rail and Underground services, looked carefully at the central London rail study and threw out the road options, we would achieve a great deal.
If we did that, my right hon. and learned Friend would have earned his rest in the second half of the summer recess and many Londoners would have rest granted to them as a result of the quick and merciful killing off of the road options that are being put to the Department of Transport.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I, too, am concerned with the environmental conditions in which the people of London live. I agree with the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) that the assessment studies now under consideration are far from what Londoners want or need. They require a rapid, considerable improvement in public transport and a reduction in the number of cars coming into central London.
We live in a dirty, polluted and dangerous city and I get more and more angry as I cycle round London having my lungs blasted full of exhaust from cars. My constituents suffer because of the vast number of commuter cars that come through my area. They are only too well aware of the major road building proposals, and earlier this week I presented 24 petitions signed by 3,000 people who live in various parts of my constituency and who oppose the road assessment studies, and there will be plenty more from where those petitions came.
My constituents are not prepared to have their homes and communities torn apart to make way for motorways which will bring even more traffic through the inner London constituencies to clog up the rest of London, as has happened this week. We must have a different approach to transport in London from the schemes that are on offer.
The other main issue that I wish to raise is poverty in London. A sense of horrible complacency descends over the House at this time of year as hon. Members seem to have a mad desire to get away to Bermuda or the Caribbean or wherever else people spend their summer holidays, leaving behind all the problems.
Despite all the press publicity that has been given this week to the reshuffling in the Government, nothing has changed for many people in London. When, later tonight, hon. Members who stayed for the Consolidated Fund debates leave to go home, the same people will be sleeping in cardboard boxes outside the law courts and on the pavements outside Charing Cross and Waterloo stations as were sleeping in those places last night. If one went out now to the theatreland area of London, one would find the same people begging around the theatre queues. People are walking round London begging for food and sustenance. The fact that that is happening in one of the world's major capital cities, in one of the richest countries and in what we are told is one of the most successful economies in western Europe is not just a standing disgrace: it is a shame on everyone. People should not be reduced to sleeping on pavements and to begging, as is happening in this capital city.
When people come to my advice surgery, as they no doubt will tomorrow evening, and to the surgeries of my hon. Friends who represent inner-London constituencies, we will hear about the horror facing people who live in

grossly overcrowded flats and the horror of young people who know that they have no chance of getting their own place in which to live. They must stay in the already overcrowded flats of their parents simply because local authorities have lost a net figure of 31,000 council properties in the past 10 years. Very few council properties are being built and many more are being sold off. There is no way in which those young people can get a place of their own because if one wants to buy anywhere in central London on a mortgage one needs an income of about £20,000 a year—unless one has considerable savings.
We are dealing with a crisis of immeasurable proportions that affects the lives not just of people already on the housing lists but of their children who suffer in school because they live in overcrowded accommodation. Earlier this week I spent several hours talking to primary school teachers in my constituency. Not only are schools increasingly short of teachers; they are increasingly becoming centres for the social problems caused by a combination of poverty and bad housing. Children are continually ill, and whenever one child gets an illness, it is immediately passed on to the rest of the family because of the overcrowded living conditions. Increasingly, children are under-achieving at school because they are unable to do any kind of homework at home. Often they cannot get enough sleep because they all sleep in the same room and somebody may want to have the radio or television on, or simply because of the comings or goings of the people in the room. It is an absolute disgrace that that is happening in the richest part of a rich country.
As my hon. Friends and I are well aware, those problems are compounded by the social security legislation that has been enacted in the past few years. I served on the previous three Standing Committees considering social security legislation. None of those pieces of legislation has achieved any improvement in people's living standards. The legislation has simply increased arbitrary control by officials of the Department of Social Security, who often do not want that control, over poor people who are suffering increased poverty, increased homelessness and increased misery in our inner-urban areas.
The people who have come to London and who have been reduced to begging on our streets should be able to look to a social security system that will not force them into that position. Nobody enjoys lowering himself to the level of begging on our streets and sleeping in cardboard boxes. It might be a bit of a laugh to sleep out for a couple of nights in the summer, but in six months' time, on cold winter evenings, sleeping in a cardboard box outside the law courts or within sight of the Savoy hotel is no joke. It shames us all.
In relation to a social security problem in my community, I quote from a copy of a letter sent to the chair of the social security advisory committee by the leader of Islington council, Margaret Hodge, because it emphasises my point:
Dear Peter Barclay,
I enclose a report produced by this Council's welfare rights team which describes the inadequate, demeaning and counter-productive nature of the Social Fund as experienced by claimants and advice staff in this borough. The Council agreed to give local DSS offices the opportunity to comment on the report and to carry out any improvements that might be feasible. However, in the three months since the report was produced, there has been a substantial deterioration in the scheme. I take no comfort from the fact that this was forecast in the body of the report.


What has happened is that expenditure on community care grants has hit 100 per cent. of the very limited local budget. In Islington, this budget was set at only one-fifth of single payments expenditure in the year prior to April 1988. In the case of Finsbury Park DSS, their expenditure hit 131 per cent. of the monthly budget target in May, supposedly a 'light' month, with the result that they will have to make up this overspend by cutting back on their expenditure this year. They, and other Islington offices, have developed more `stringent' local guidelines to achieve this. Obviously, these `stringent' guidelines will be even more Draconian than the Secretary of State's Directions which still provide the legal framework for the scheme.
Reports are coming in from all over the borough that people who qualify under the Directions for a Community Care Grant are being offered loans. This is totally unacceptable.
I heartily agree with and endorse the contents of that letter. I have placed a copy of the Islington report on the operation of the social fund in the Library and have sent another copy to the Department of Social Security. We warned the Department about what was happening and said that cash-limiting the social fund locally was not only disastrous, but meant that a proportion of what was available to poor people two or three years ago was already overspent. Local DSS staff have been placed in the appalling position of having to say to deserving people, "You cannot have the grants that you could have had a year ago and which we believe you should have under the guidelines because the money is simply not there."
A letter from the manager of the Finsbury Park DSS office to his staff about social fund priorities and community care grants states:
I have detailed below the Community Care Grant expenditure for the period 1 April 1989 to 30 June 1989 which shows that, despite arrangements to restrict awards to essential items of furniture and household equipment and thereby remain on profile, expenditure has still exceeded the budget profile.
The manager then gives the figures, and says:
As you can see, payments for furniture and household equipment on their own, have exceeded the budget for the period in question. In order to ensure that future expenditure can be contained within profile, I have had to introduce the following measures from 3rd July 1989:—

(1) All claims for items of low to medium priority—clothing, redecoration, leisure items, Hire Purchase and other debts are unlikely to be met in view of their priority status and;
(2) Community Care Grant awards for furniture and household equipment will be limited to the amounts in Annex 4 of Social Fund Manual i.e. £500.00 for a single person, £750·00 for a couple with £220·00 additions per child. Additionally, it may be necessary to refuse claims for high priority items if expenditure continues to outstrip budget profile.

So far as budgetary loans are concerned, expenditure remains within profile".
Loans in certain categories are available, but they are loans to people who are already poor. For those who are eligible and deserving of a community care grant, the money will simply not be available.
I hope that the Leader of the House will undertake to refer the serious and legitimate concerns that I have voiced to the Department of Social Security. I am horrified that throughout August, September and for most of October, there will be no opportunity for me to raise these matters in the House and that the people in my area will have to go without what should be theirs by right. The House must resolve the problem of the serious urban poverty in our capital city.

Sir Philip Goodhart: Before I follow the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick I and for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) on a brief trip to the far east, I remind the House that exactly one week ago the water to a substantial part of my constituency was cut off. That caused distress and discomfort to many of my constituents and put several at real risk.
Yesterday I received a letter from one constituent which read:
I am writing to you on my mother's behalf. She is 95 years old, blind and housebound. Her supply of water was turned off on Friday without any warning or without any provision being made for her to obtain water. The Thames Water Authority over their `answerphone' could only say there was a tap somewhere locally—no address given.
Although Thames Water had known for 48 hours before the taps had to be switched off that a crisis was imminent, during that time no warning was given to the people of south London and no appeals to save water were made to offset the drastic step that was taken. I believe that there should be an inquiry into why the water was cut off without warning, in view of the public health risk involved. In the weeks ahead, a firm statement should be made about the amount of compensation that will be paid to those people who were put at risk.
My primary concern this evening is the plight of the Vietnamese boat people. I often corresponded with my right hon. and learned Friend on this subject when he was at the Foreign Office. All hon. Members know that tens of thousands of boat people from Vietnam have crowded into Hong Kong in recent weeks. They live in dreadful conditions and, if authoritative newspaper reports are to be believed, men, women and children will be forcibly shipped back to Vietnam before the House reassembles in the autumn.
The argument used by the Hong Kong authorities, the Foreign Office and the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in favour of such a scheme is that these people are not proper refugees, but economic migrants. It is rarely easy to draw a sensible line between economic oppression and political oppression. In Poland, the founders of Solidarity began by striking against dreadful economic conditions, but the economic strike soon became a political protest. In the Soviet Union in recent weeks, coal miners have been striking against economic failure, but the strikes also seem to have political overtones.
If a family risk their lives by fleeing from Vietnam in a leaking, overcrowded boat—scores of boat people have been drowned when trying to escape this year—will the authorities in Vietnam consider that an economic and not a political gesture if the family is forced to return? We cannot be sure.
We know that some of the officials of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Hong Kong are unhappy about the screening procedures for new arrivals from Vietnam. There is also the argument that it is all right to send them back because Vietnam has changed. Thanks to the Foreign Office, I had an opportunity recently to meet the Foreign Minister of Vietnam—a hardened Communist with some 15 years' experience in the upper echelons of one of the most rigidly orthodox Communist countries in the world—who has been converted to free enterprise. When I talked to him, he sounded as though he was standing for chairmanship of the Back-Bench Conservative finance committee. He was


sure that political freedom would follow economic freedom. He certainly sounded more pro-capitalist than many of the South Vietnamese Ministers to whom I talked in Saigon in 1965 and in 1973.
Vietnam is still a closed society, and I do not believe that it is safe to send families back until Vietnam as a whole is open to diplomats, journalists, relief workers and tourists.
Conditions in the boat people's camps in Hong Kong are exceptionally bad. About eight weeks ago I visited the Shamshuipo camp in Hong Kong, where about 4,500 people live in conditions so bad that if we kept dogs in similar conditions in this country, the RSPCA would lead an outcry. Since then, conditions in many camps have deteriorated quite sharply. We know that the Hong Kong Government are unwilling to make any more money available.
Ultimately, we have responsibility for the conditions in those camps. I know that, in the first six months of this year, the British taxpayer provided £12 million to help with the problems caused by the influx of another 35,000 boat people, but it will take at least another £20 million before the end of this year to maintain standards that were barely tolerable before the new flood of boat people arrived.
I hope that the new Minister for Overseas Development will make it plain that the money will be available. If we pay the piper, we should also call the tune. In this country, we have many people who are expert in dealing with displaced persons and refugees. We should immediately send a high-level delegation of experts to Hong Kong to inspect the camps and if they recommend it, the British Government should take over direct responsibility for running some or all of the camps for new arrivals.
Urgent action is needed. I hope that the new Foreign Secretary will treat this as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Frank Dobson: There have been many interesting speeches in this Adjournment debate. I do not think that any hon. Member has advocated that we do not break for the summer recess, and that is advantageous, as it steers us clear of hypocrisy. This debate gives us an opportunity to raise issues which are of concern to individual hon. Members.
The most common theme tonight has been the environment. I shall leave it to the Leader of the House to respond to each individual speech, and I am sure that he will deploy the considerable skills that he acquired over many years in the courts to summarise the cases that have been made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) mentioned the environment, particularly the North sea. During this Session of Parliament, there has been a considerable increase in public concern about the environment. I think that that concern is likely to grow during the recess, as there seems to be evidence that people's concern for the environment grows when they are on holiday, and they go to places that they are not familiar with.
Many people visit the seaside on their holidays or cross the sea in boats or aircraft. Most people who fly across the North sea, or the Irish sea, cannot fail to be impressed by

how small they are. Their small size makes them vulnerable. The problems of the North sea and the Irish sea are legion, and they are not being dealt with as well or as quickly as they should be.
One sad example is the death of the majority of the seal population around the United Kingdom. That shows how little we know about the ecology of our seas. Although scientists warned that there was some danger to the seal population, none predicted such a disaster. We must be increasingly cautious when we make assumptions about the environment. Perhaps "precautious" would be a better word to describe what our attitude to the sea should be.
Owing to the current fears of holiday disruption abroad, the United Kingdom's seaside resorts are experiencing something of a revival, and it would be preferable if people were to encounter rather less sewage on the beaches. The response of the previous Secretary of State for the Environment—the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—to sewage dispersal into the sea was, I, understand, to favour longer discharge pipes; those, however, provide no solution in our small and landlocked seas. They are really horizontal marine equivalents of the tall chimneys that have been exporting acid rain for some years. It appears that the Government never learn.
A development which, over the past few years, has revealed the Government's attitude to the marine environment is the massive and continuing failure of sea-bird breeding in the Shetlands, caused by the overfishing of sand eels, which, in theory, is regulated by the Government. The massive sea-bird colonies of Northern Britain are a unique biological feature of major international significance. In that area—I take just one example—Arctic terns have failed to breed because the chicks starved to death in 1984, 1985, and 1986. On some major sites, no chicks at all were reared in 1987 and 1988, and this year's breeding has also failed. Other species, such as the puffin, have also suffered massive breeding failure.
The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland—DAFS for the sake of brevity—has repeatedly told my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) the Royal Society for Birds and other such bodies that that failure has nothing to do with the adjacent industrial sand eel fisheries. It now turns out that the Department's own experts had been warning it of the consequences of overfishing the sand eels since as long ago as 1983. The disastrous belated decision of DAFS to license the Shetland sand eel fishery is a typical example of its dilatoriness. We now need a similar ban on the sand eel fishery in the Minch, unless more birds are to die and to cease to breed.
The problem is that the fate of the sea-bird colonies seems to be irrelevant to DAFS, which sees its responsibility as regulating the fishery rather than upholding the Government's obligation to protect the birds. That is symptomatic of the Tory approach, which is to maximise economic exploitation of the environment, not to protect it.
The newly appointed Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) comes to the job with a reputation of being more sensitive, but I think that this is a bit of a rerun. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave)—now Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—when in a more junior Environment post, also had the reputation of being "green", saying the right words and even appearing at ease


for his numerous photo opportunities. When it comes to matters of substance, however, he did very little, and his presence in that Department has already been forgotten.
Next March, there will be a third ministerial conference on the protection of the North sea. It will be a crucial test for the Government, because so many of the pollution problems that we create have their ultimate impact on the narrow seas that surround us. The last conference, held in 1987, agreed some measures. It agreed to give the environment the benefit of the doubt when faced with uncertainty—what is described as the precautionary principle—and assented to 50 per cent. reductions in some of the most obviously risky substances being discharged into the North sea.
Pollutants continue to accumulate, however, especially in the vulnerable coastal areas and in the narrowest part, the southern North sea. To halve the rate of discharge is no solution; it only buys time for a more fundamental shift of policy. That must be a shift from a society that is dependent on creating waste and then disposing of it to one that gives proper attention to not creating the waste in the first place. There is an opportunity here and now to do something. Public support for cleaning up the environment has never been so strong, but what is new, and what offers to make hopes of improvement a reality, is the significant thinking that is going on—even in the industries that, up to now, have been creating the waste.
The spring 1989 issue of the magazine Process Engineering was devoted entirely to the environment. It produced some interesting conclusions: that engineers are worried about the state of the environment, that there is vast potential for clean, no-waste and low-waste technology and that that could be economically viable, often with a rapid payback on the investment. However, the framework within which such companies must work is not conducive to the development of clean technologies, because there is no incentive for them to take action while waste-dumping costs are so low and regulations so lax.
Governments must act to achieve prompt and effective change. They can provide the long-term framework and objectives, and make it absolutely clear that the only way forward is a fundamental switch from our present culture of waste creation and disposal to one geared to placing a primary emphasis on clean technology and avoiding the creation of waste. That means thinking about what is being produced, as well as about the waste created during its manufacture.
Because the North sea is the sink for so much of our waste, and because the North sea conference has the scale and political clout to mean something, the forthcoming third conference must do much more. It must shift from ad hoc pollution control measures to working out a long-term planned strategy to achieve the necessary shift to clean technologies. That will give industries the guidance, structure and time with which to achieve the changes that are now possible. If that is to happen, however, countries such as Britain must realise how urgent it is for the third North sea conference to shift what has in the past been an emphasis on short-term "fix-it" measures. If we do not move on, there will be nothing left to fix.
Apart from the environmental benefits, it will be to our economic advantage if we are a prime mover. If the problem is to be resolved by united action at an international level, the growing United Kingdom pollution control industry will be presented with a wider market. If we are in the vanguard of the change, we can

profit from it, but if we tag along in the rear, whingeing and moaning, we shall end up having to import products and skills when the international community finally forces us to catch up with others.
Unfortunately, there is little sign of that happening. The new Environment Secretary is supposed to have been appointed to improve the presentation of Government policy, but he will have to do more. We cannot rely on improved presentation; we shall need policy changes. I can say now that one test that will distinguish presentation from substance will be whether the right hon. Gentleman—during the current preparations for the third North sea conference, and at the conference—calls for those structural changes necessary for a clean environment. If he does not, he will have failed, and no amount of presentation will cover up his failure.
The new Secretary of State is renowned as a communicator, the implication being that his predecessor was not one. I consider that unfair: the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury was a very good communicator. He made it blindingly obvious that protecting the environment could not be reconciled with the Thatcherite policies of deregulation. No amount of presentation can change that. I hope that the new Secretary of State will be able to bring some pressure and influence to bear on his colleagues to try to ensure that, when the future of everyone in this country and indeed in northern Europe is affected, we make the necessary effort and the necessary change both here and abroad. At home, and in partnership with our neighbours in northern Europe, we must work to clean up the North sea and the Irish sea. If we do not, succeeding generations will never forgive us.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I do not intend to try to follow the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) who gave us a somewhat discursive presentation of an important case involving environmental matters. I welcome his perceptive observation that there was not much of a sustained chorus of opposition to the motion for the summer adjournment. One or two hardy souls said that they would be glad to stay, as long as nobody made them do so. That is understandable.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras spoke about a wide range of environmental matters. The new Secretary of State for the Environment recently left my former Department to join my former parliamentary private secretary in the Department of the Environment. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will study the hon. Gentleman's remarks with care and enthusiasm.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) made what seemed to be a serious set of allegations about what he described as inexcusable, bureaucratic mistakes in the operation of the insolvency service. That service deals with about 12,000 personal bankruptcies and company liquidations each year. That is a large number to deal with effectively. The service sets a high standard, but clearly the case that my hon. Friend cited did not measure up to that standard. I shall invite the authorities to investigate it if my hon. Friend will be kind enough to let me have the details of the case.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) has been reading, as I have been, the interview with President Mitterrand and speculating about the long-term implications of the President's observations about the Government's attitude towards economic and monetary union. The hon. Gentleman cited with approval President Mitterrand's proposition that we should play the card of agreement. That is important, because President Mitterrand mentioned the desirability of proceeding with major decisions about the future of the Community in unanimous agreement. The Government share that view.
At the conclusion of the Madrid conference we made it quite clear that we would take part in any intergovernmental conference about economic and monetary union, although we emphasised that a great deal of preparatory work is necessary first. It should not take place along the exclusive lines traced out in the Delors report. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take some encouragement from the fact that by tenacious negotiation we were able to reach agreement on the important stages of development whether at Fontainebleau, at Luxembourg in the Single European Act, at Frankfurt or, indeed, at Madrid. The hon. Gentleman should not be too despondent about the possibility of agreement not being achievable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) spoke comprehensively and effectively about his concern for the future of Manchester airport and the case for increasing the use of such regional airports. My hon. Friend gave a variety of reasons. One was because our other airports in the south-east are already overcrowded and the second was because we need to attract transatlantic traffic to this country rather than allowing it to go to continental airports. The third reason was for the sake of increasing prosperity in the northern airports.
I respond to my hon. Friend's case with some sympathy because my constituency is immediately adjacent to Gatwick and my constituents take great comfort from the fact that there is a prohibition on the construction of a second runway at that airport. I hope that that will enable my hon. Friend to develop his case with which the Government have always had great sympathy. At the same time we have to try to safeguard the interests of the country as a whole by ensuring that increased access for foreign airlines is traded for benefits for United Kingdom airlines. My hon. Friend said that we should use international air traffic agreements effectively to promote the right kind of airport policy. I am sure that that will continue to be the case.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) made a rather robust attack on the policy of the Government in relation to the national dock labour scheme. When I reflect on the condition of the docks in Merseyside today compared with the condition of those docks when I was first elected there in 1954, I share his sense of sadness. One of the books that I had an opportunity to study in the last year or two was a magnificent specially printed book called "A Cruise in Scots Waters" which was printed in 1847. It described a cruise in which the navigators set out from the port of Liverpool in 1847.
The description of the teeming prosperity and the Venetian imperial dynamism of Liverpool in those days

was a fantastic reminder of what has been lost. Sadly, a great deal of that has been lost in recent years because of the immobility of those leaders of the dock workers who have hung on to the dock work labour scheme long past its useful life. Today it is up to the employers and the employees to establish new employment arrangements that will enable the new opportunities to be seized. The hon. Member for Garston presented a rather curious case, arguing that the Government were undermining the rights of trade union members at a time when commuters and others in this city are oppressed by a proliferation of strikes rather than the reverse.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who is lurking in an unfamiliar place in the Chamber, was kind enough to acknowledge that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor had made significant improvements—from his point of view—to the Government's proposals on the legal profession between the Green Paper and the White Paper. He also said that the proposals adopted by our profession at the Bar in consequence of the Green Paper were the most far reaching ever set in hand. If I may say so, it was high time for such things. I have long studied the 1846 Special Select Committee report which contained a number of reforms that have long since been neglected. My hon. and learned Friend was right to say that a great deal has been achieved, and it is right for us to approach the debates in the next session on that basis.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has told me that he cannot be here for the conclusion of the debate, was one of two hon. Members who spoke about events in China. The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) spoke about his impression of events in China and compared them in a rather curious fashion with his impression of the development of Hong Kong. I had some sympathy with the hon. Member for Bradford, North, who can describe himself as a faithful Socialist if any Opposition Member can use such a term, when he went on to describe what he called his idea of Socialism. He was obliged to disclaim as an example virtually every case of Socialism that has ever been put in place. He described with the utmost enthusiasm everything that he sees taking place in China. I wonder how Socialists view the world when they cannot find any working examples that they are not about to disclaim.
The hon. Member for Bradford, North went on to bemoan and criticise conditions in Hong Kong. Hong Kong's problems consist of trying to cope with an uncheckable torrent of refugees from Vietnam and daily and overwhelming applications from potential refugees from mainland China. The people of Hong Kong are proclaiming the freedom that they have enjoyed under British rule and seeking to be protected from the contrasts that exist in the Socialist state on the other side of the border.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North was certainly right to draw attention to the great importance as perceived by the people of Hong Kong of plans for the future location of the People's Liberation Army in Hong Kong. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will have that in mind as an important point to canvass in future discussions with the Government of China.
The hon. Member for Bradford, North referred to the case of Xu Hai Ning and paid tribute, which I welcome, to the way in which Home Office officials and others have


responded to his complaint. I identified some of the other activities which gave him anxiety, which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) made a moving, important and characteristic contribution to our debate. I speak of him as my hon. Friend wih a particular recollection of the time when we walked down Fleet street and up Ludgate hill together to sit alongside each other for the memorial service for the death of Sir Winston Churchill. We have been Members of Parliament together. He has served with distinction in many capacities in Northern Ireland. His plea for the political leaders of Ulster to get together, to risk insults to achieve political progress for the people of Northern Ireland was, he will have noticed, heard by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend may not know that we are publishing tomorrow a booklet in recognition of the 20 years presence of our forces in Northern Ireland, to whom he rightly paid tribute. The booklet is entitled, "The Day of the Men and Women of Peace Must Surely Come". As my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said, the booklet tries to
demonstrate the positive and creative work of the real people of Northern Ireland and the achievements over the past 20 years.
My hon. Friend and I have not taken the same view of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but I hope that he joins me in regarding the setting in which we now find ourselves as one in which people should respond to the moving plea that he made.
I listened to the several points made by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) with interest, partly because he welcomed me as a fellow Welshman to these debates. I was mindful of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) not to be carried away by that emotional coincidence. I am not so carried away as to subscribe to the critical view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales that was taken by the hon. Member for Ogmore. Conservative Members share the view that the people of Wales have an outstanding Secretary of State who has achieved a great deal. A momentary Welsh debate took place between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn about the prospects for a debate on the Health Service in Wales. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is a prospect of that coming about in the Welsh Grand Committee before too long.
On Sunday trading, the position of the European Court has not yet been finalised, and in those circumstances, many local authorities are not taking action until the position is clearer. As to the Children Bill, that will be the subject of debate when the House comes back after the recess.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) spoke of another part of the country where mining is an important activity, as it is in the Ogmore valley, but he was speaking, understandably, of his constituency and the environmental impact of opencast mining in the Erewash valley. Even so, the Government believe that opencast mining is a valuable source of economic coal and wish to develop that source, but only if that can be done in an environmentally acceptable way. That is why we issued the new mineral planning guidelines in May of last year, and those are intended to give full weight to environmental issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn devoted the substance of his speech to the recent serious examples of salmonella food poisoning in his constituency and he made important points. First, he paid a tribute to the health authorities that have responded so effectively to this emergency. He stressed the need for notices to be issued naming the source of such problems, giving fair warning across borders between different authorities to consumers of the hazards arising in such ways. He may like to know that the chief medical officer of the Welsh Office, having issued details of the retail outlets that have been supplied with the offending cooked cold meats, has gone on to issue today a further notice with further information on some vacuum-packed cold cooked meats from the same source that may be hazardous. I shall draw his detailed points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) gave us a long and by no means insignificant insight into some serious environmental problems with which he is rightly concerned. He spoke specifically about the Nature Conservancy Council. There is a case for conservation policy to be formulated on a Great Britain basis. We are fully aware of that, if only to enable us to comply with international obligations. However that should not be allowed to overshadow the real benefits for nature conservation that will flow from regional organisations as well. The balance is intended to be right, but I shall draw his points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the newly appointed Secretary of State for the Environment. He will have noticed yesterday during Question Time that my right hon. Friend responded to the approach made by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) by saying that he would try to establish a common approach to environmental policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) urged me to draw the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury and the Office of Arts and Libraries to the needs of the English National Opera and the English National Ballet. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts is aware of the situation and is confident that a means will be found to allow both organisations to continue their excellent work.
My hon. Friend joined the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in drawing attention to the concerns arising from the impact of possible changes in the inner London highway system. Rather ambitiously, he said that he would tackle this problem with wig, pen and sword. With the greatest respect to the learned Clerks, I cannot see what value a wig would have. He should take note of the fact that the studies in which he is concerned are about improving conditions for residents, cyclists, pedestrians, business and those travelling in these areas. They are looking at combinations of public transport, parking control and enforcement, and not simply the construction of new highways.
Finally, I acknowledge the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Gooclhart). I hope that he will forgive me if I do not reply in detail. I have done so before, and I should not like to trespass at this stage on the reply that he is likely to get in due course from my successor in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
I commend the motion to the House and wish hon. Members on both sides of the House a happy summer holiday.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 28 July, do adjourn until Tuesday 17th October.

Orders of the Day — Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(1) (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Orders of the Day — Eastern Europe

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: It has been an honour and a privilege for two years to have led the United Kingdom delegation to the parliamentary assemblies of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. It is a pleasure because the delegation is mixed politically and works remarkably well. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who leads the Labour group, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), who acts as my Whip, and whose idea it was to ask for this debate. He asked whether I would support it in writing; I did so, and the ballot produced my name first. I hope that he will not mind if I say some of the things that he might have said.
I wanted particularly to talk about the Council of Europe because of what I can only call the distorted, inaccurate and outdated attack made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) on 14 July at columns 1269–71. It was his second speech in a two-day foreign affairs debate. I pause to wonder whether any other Privy Councillor has ever exercised the privilege of making speeches on two successive days, thus depriving colleagues of speaking time. I have never before attacked my right hon. Friend in public; I felt that it was not right to do so. On this occasion he will not be able to say that he has heard it all before. I cannot allow his words to remain unchallenged on the record.
My right hon. Friend said that the Council of Europe achieved useful work during its early years. He added that it was formed as a forum for discussion and nothing more, and that it had never been able to fulfil any other purpose.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: No, I shall not give way. I ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me for not doing so. He will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate, and will understand that others wish to speak. That is why I would rather not give way on this occasion.

Mr. Banks: rose——

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Very well, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He normally gives way when hon. Members wish to intervene.
I know the hon. Gentleman to be an honourable man and I inquire whether he notified his former leader and Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), that he would make these comments.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I notified my right hon. Friend through his parliamentary private secretary. I suggest that among colleagues there is no purpose in making such a point.
In this, as in so many other ways, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is out of touch and out of date. For example, he may not have heard of the Colombo commission, which had many distinguished members, many of them as committed Europeans as himself. The members of the commission concluded that the Council of Europe was vital in achieving closer unity among Europeans. The 40th anniversary communiqué of the Council of Ministers of the 23, which include the 12, stated:
We are determined to exploit the Council of Europe's potential in full by giving a new impetus and political direction to the intergovernmental co-operation conducted within its framework. We are counting on the promotional and initiatory action of the Assembly, which as parliamentary organ of the Council of Europe composed of members of national Parliaments is in constant touch with the public's wishes and concerns and provides the essential link with national democratic institutions.
To strengthen the means of action it intends
to integrate the conferences of specialised Ministers more fully into the Council of Europe's institutional framework and decision-making process;
c. to maintain the political dialogue within the Committee of Ministers with emphasis on the political aspects of European co-operation in general and … to ensure that public opinion is better informed of the Council of Europe's aims and achievements.
That is enough to show that the views of my right hon. Friend are not shared by the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, Italy or the United Kingdom, who signed that unanimous declaration. Nor are his views shared by many friends in all parties of the Council of Europe who come from France, Germany and Italy.
Another current issue is the social charter. The Council of Europe has a remarkably good social charter that works. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was criticised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, but her views were endorsed unanimously at the European Council at Rhodes on 2 and 3 December 1988. The communiqué read:
As regards implementation of social rights, the European Council awaits such proposals as the Commission might consider useful to submit having drawn inspiration from the social charter of the Council of Europe.
Mr. Mitterrand does not share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup about the Council of Europe.
I shall leave what I call the past, but it was essential to set the record straight, or what the Ministers said in their communiqué about enlisting public opinion would not have had effect.
We have three European bodies to consider: the European Parliament, the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. The European Parliament is directly elected and its members derive their support from direct elections. The members of the Council of Europe and the WEU are drawn from national Parliaments—from us. It is a more valuable method of approach to raise on the Floor of the House the issues that concern us at the Council of Europe or the Western European Union. That

method is essential in more than one way. In the period immediately ahead we must try to work as good Europeans. That does not mean one European state. but achieving unity of purpose with a diversity of culture and nationhood. Each organisation has its own distinct task to perform.
Economic and trade matters are for the European Community and the European Parliament. Defence and security are for the Western European Union. Those powers are given to the WEU by treaty—the modified Brussels treaty of 1954—and are not weakened by the Single European Act. The WEU has been strengthened immensely by four recent events. The first was the accession of Portugal and Spain. The second was the out-of-area activities in the Gulf where, for the first time, every member of the WEU co-operated. Luxembourg, which does not have a Navy, contributed financially towards the cost of the operations, and that was much appreciated. The third was the broad measure of support and endorsement given to the WEU by the present and previous United States Administrations.
The fourth event was the distinguished chairmanship of the Council of Ministers of the WEU by the British Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State for Defence. The hon. Member for Wentworth, who outside this place I would call my friend, will agree that, remembering the other Chairmen of the Council, ours were outstanding. My right hon. and learned Friend the former Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Defence did a first-class job and got things done, which was extremely important.
The Council of Europe is responsible for cultural, environmental, human rights and related matters that can provide the bridge between East and West. The building of that bridge is probably the most important task to which the Council has set its hand during the past few months. The time has come when there is an opening and an opportunity for the bridge to be constructed. Not only was Mr. Gorbachev's visit to Strasbourg significant for his choice of the Council of Europe to address, but the Council's parliamentary assembly—which now embraces all 23 nations of western Europe and Scandinavia, making it the largest European organisation extant—extended guest membership to the USSR, Yugoslavia, Hungary and Poland.
Those who attended the latter part of that session could not have been anything but moved by the speeches of the Poles and Hungarians in particular. It was emotionally moving to hear the Poles, a very gallant people, speaking again in a democratic institution after 40 years or more of silence. The speech of the Soviet representative was encouraging because it recognised that Soviet internal laws must be changed to bring into force some of the human rights provisions to which the Soviets have signed their name under the Helsinki agreement. It was the most interesting meeting that I have attended for many years.

Sir Dudley Smith: My hon. Friend's remarks totally give the lie to the allegations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Does my hon. Friend agree that the Council of Europe is so enhanced that it is paving the way and, in a pioneering spirit, is recording achievements that were unthought of even five years ago?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is significant that the Council of Ministers within the Council of Europe contains the identical Ministers who comprise the Council of Ministers in the European Community. Clearly they believe that the Council of Europe performs a function that cannot be fulfilled by the Community.
Even more, in the next few months we shall see the signing of certain Council of Europe conventions by its new guest members, which will also represent an enormous advance. Mr. Gorbachev's comment that we must all work together to achieve clean, safe nuclear power, and his offer to share ideas on how to achieve that, were among the most helpful contributions that I have heard for a long time. Much of that work can be done in the Council of Europe. The Council is not a mere talking shop, which was the criticism at the heart of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, but a parliamentary assembly for Europe which, if progress is made as we hope, will in time offer full membership to all of Europe—east, west and central. A Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals is surely what we all want, because that would herald a real era of peace.
I am proud to be a vice-president of the WEU and the Council of Europe, because that gives me an insight into what can be achieved. The Council, the WEU and the European Parliament each has a separate job to do, but they should work in harmony to avoid duplication or triplication. I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his new post, and if he is to be our ministerial link with the Council of Europe, I shall be delighted. I ask him to put some pressure on the Council of Ministers of the European Community to intervene when it witnesses the European Parliament embarking on action in areas that are clearly not its concern. The European Parliament is attempting to become involved in defence, for example, which is totally outwith its competence. It would be helpful if the Ministers of the Twelve would say so. Although they cannot stop the European Parliament becoming involved, they could at least make it clear that that is not the European Parliament's task. It also wants to get in on the act in respect of the Council of Europe's activities on human rights. That is fine, and I am delighted that it is interested, but the European Parliament has other important work to do. If the Ministers, wearing their Twelve hats, would say so, it would be very welcome.
I have never shared the view often expressed that the work that right hon. and hon. Members do outside this Chamber is not important. Through our ability to represent, in European assemblies, different strands of opinion from this Chamber, we can offer Europe some of the ideas of democracy that have been ours for a long time. We can demonstrate that one can consider arguments made rationally in debate, rather than endure a series of set speeches. In that way the Council of Europe, which has just celebrated its 40th anniversary, can look forward to celebrating an equally successful 50th anniversary.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) on initiating this debate, even though one reason for it was to criticise his right hon. Friend for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman in that domestic and internal dispute, but the debate is important

because it is about not only the Council of Europe but the relationship between it and what is still called eastern Europe.
Momentous changes are occurring in Europe, and it is in everyone's interest to ensure that Europe's institutions play their part in ensuring that those changes occur in a peaceful and orderly manner. Yalta, the post-war settlement, cannot survive perestroika. Eastern Europe is rapidly becoming central Europe again. When we debate these matters again in five years' time, perhaps we shall not talk about eastern Europe but about central Europe.
The Soviet Union is, sadly perhaps, in some decline, and the corollary is that Germany is in the ascendancy. The countries of what we still call eastern Europe are moving towards democratic, pluralistic societies. Poland and Hungary are in the vanguard, and, despite Czechoslovakia's problems, and given its strong democratic, industrial and manufacturing traditions, it will not be very far behind. It is in the interest of us all, both on the Left and on the Right in Europe, to ensure that changes are made quietly and peaceably.
I do not want to introduce a partisan note, but there is a danger that certain people on the radical Right in Europe, or more so in the United States, and who may number among them emigres or those who want to pay off old scores against eastern Europe and its Communist parties, may want to push change too fast and propel the countries of eastern Europe towards a kind of Hayekian, Right-wing capitalist society. I do not believe that those countries want that. I think that they want to move gradually back into the social democratic traditions of western Europe. I even believe—I have no evidence for this—that President Gorbachev would like to move the Soviet Union gradually back towards those social democratic traditions. We must be careful not to push change too quickly. We must also be careful not to push our ideology on those countries, but to let change develop gradually and peacefully.
The great unmentionable is Germany. As the Soviet Union declines, Germany will become more powerful. The German Democratic Republic cannot survive perestroika. In the end, it cannot survive the changes taking place in Hungary, in Poland and—I think and I hope—in Czechoslovakia. The GDR, like the Federal Republic of Germany, is a state, not a nation. Whereas Hungary and Poland can adapt to those changes, the GDR, being to some extent an artificial state, cannot maintain the reason for its existence, which has been the 40 years of a division of Europe.
We must face the fact—I do not say this in any fear or panic—that perestroika and the changes that we all want to see will lead, sooner rather than later, to what may be described as the reunification of Germany. I do not know whether that will be done through a federal concept. The policy of Labour and Conservative Governments has been that the wall should come down. If it does, we must think through the consequences for Germany and for Germany's position in that part of Europe.
When the reunification comes, Germany will be even stronger. The Soviet Union will have to reach an accommodation with Germany. Reaching an accommodation with Germany may well lead to the reunification of Germany because the Soviet Union will need the technological advice and the industrial assistance which only Germany can provide in that part of Europe.
Whether we like it or not, we shall gradually see German economic domination of the countries to the east of Germany which we now call eastern Europe. In Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary we shall see German economic hegemony. We shall also see that moving through the Ukraine into the Soviet Union.
Mr. Gorbachev calls for a common European house. Perhaps that will come about.

Sir Dudley Smith: Home.

Mr. Davies: There is some debate about that. If it is a common European home, that is all very well. But that home will be situated in what I would call a common deutschmark zone because the deutschmark and the power of Germany will dominate the common European home or house in that part of Europe. Just as the deutschmark is dominating the western part of Europe, it will also dominate the eastern part of Europe as perestroika proceeds.
The French panic about such matters. They have spotted that situation and have thought about it. Apparently M. Mitterrand and M. Jacques Delors think that the German juggernaut can be prevented from going east or west by creating some sort of common currency, whether it is called the ecu or anything else. The central bank in Brussels will apparently stop Germany's industrial and economic might. That will not work. A currency is only as strong as the industrial and economic power of the country behind it. But the French have come up with a wheeze and no doubt they will try to push it. Whatever happens to European economic and monetary union, it will not work.
We do not know what the British Government think. We welcome the Minister and congratulate him on his appointment. I do not expect him to deal with the matter tonight, but one of these days, we must debate the issue in a wider context than tonight's debate. As far as I am aware we have not yet debated it at all. It is the great unmentionable. We are told that the Prime Minister is a bit worried about German domination and does not know what to do about it. With our weak economy there is nothing that we can do about it. But at least we can start debating the matter. At least we can see that, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) said, the institutions of Europe can be used to ensure peaceful change. In the end, we must also debate what we think about the possible or probable reunification of Germany. Those matters are better debated. We have swept them under the carpet for too long.

Mr. James Hill: I was extremely surprised when I read the report of the foreign affairs debate on Friday 14 July in which a person whom I have respected over many years, in a tirade, almost of denigration, suddenly turned against the work so ably carried out by the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. I was appointed to the European Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in 1973. I was appointed the chairman of the first British committee of transport and regional planning about three months later and I served for 10 years in the Council of Europe.
As Whip of the delegation I know how hard most of our members work and how dedicated we are to bringing to a

successful conclusion what seems to be a tremendous opportunity now, with Mr. Gorbachev pinpointing Strasbourg—not the Strasbourg of the Economic Community, but the Strasbourg of the Council of Europe—to make a major speech. Mr. Gorbachev has also put his seal of approval on the fact that we are now inviting as guests 18 representatives from the USSR, six from Hungary, seven from Poland and eight from Yugoslavia. He is determined to establish links with us, especially on some of our committees with scientific and technological knowledge—for example, the defence and armaments committee of the WEU, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) is chairman.

Sir Dudley Smith: My hon. Friend will also be well aware that the WEU has recently received a high-level visit from representatives of the Supreme Soviet, including a general and others, who came to the WEU headquarters in Paris for discussions. That was another tremendous advance in political representatives' thinking and understanding.

Mr. Hill: Quite so, and those of us who had not worked with Russians at the committee table before were surprised by the tremendous degree of glasnost which was evident in Paris only two or three weeks ago.
I am not surprised that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has emphasised the work done on the social charter in the past. It was quite obvious to me that my right hon. Friend saw no reason to accept Mr. Delors's version of the social charter because on 18 October 1961 we signed a European social charter along with 13 other nations. That process has continued to expand through the work of the various committees of the Council of Europe, and it is now fairly obvious to most of us who know Europe that the Commission is picking up most of its ideas on the subject from work done by the Council of Europe in the past.
One of the recent books that has been produced is the report on the activities of the Council of Europe in 1987. I recommend it to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup because it may help to bring him up to date with the work of the Council of Europe. It is sad that 36 Members of this House and the other place should go to Europe and work on these matters only to find ihat a well-respected right hon. Friend suddenly seems to know little about the work that is done.
My right hon. Friend obviously knows about the work of the European Court of Human Rights, and he probably knows that more than 14,500 cases have been investigated by that court since 1950, but does he know a great deal about the European social charter introduced in 1965? Does he know that we have a convention on the eradication of torture, which was opened for signature in November 1987? Does he realise that we have explored terrorism to the extent of declaring that certain acts of terrorism can no longer be regarded as political crimes for the purposes of extradition and mutual assistance? Is not the Council well ahead with the problems of terrorism, in its 1977 convention on the suppression of terrorism? What about data protection, which is almost a new subject? We were discussing it in 1981 in the Council of Europe. What about wildlife, the new "in" thing with which everyone is so concerned? We had a convention on the conservation of wildlife and natural habitats in June 1982.
The list is long and sometimes I despair that we will ever break through, not to the 400 million Europeans but to the community of 600 here in the Palace of Westminster. After the Heysel stadium tragedy in 1985 we had a convention which laid down binding agreements to deal with hooliganism. We have a convention on transfrontier co-operation. That ensures co-operation on major roads and bridges and the free transport of goods and so on. We have also dealt with local self-government. Lately we have dealt with audio-visual issues. We have a European convention on transfrontier television. The Stockholm conference was a tremendous success. Everyone assumed that it was something to do with the Community, but it was to do with the work carried out by the Council of Europe.
There is a long list of other conventions. We have a convention on insider trading which has been one of the most serious issues in this country in the past couple of years. We have also dealt with international bankruptcy. We have to work on a complete European scale to obtain any control.
The problem is that very few people know about the work done on drug abuse by the Pompidou group. Very few people know about the youth activities in the Community or the work done by the Council of Europe, covering the European youth centre and the European Youth Foundation. Does anybody here know about that? What is wrong with our public relations? Are we not getting it through to our elder statesmen that Europe has moved on?
We are hoping to co-operate with Mr. Gorbachev on his idea of a pan-European process. Will we ever be able to have a cross-fertilisation of ideas with the iron curtain countries? Are we seeing the first break in the wall to which the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) referred? Has not Hungary destroyed its own fences and the land mines that separate it from Austria? As Winston Churchill said, we should have "talk-talk, not war-war"—I am sure that someone will correct me.

Mr. Michael Lord: "Jaw-jaw."

Mr. Hill: I hope that Hansard got all that.
We do jaw a lot. I must apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. However, at the end of the day we make sense. If the 23 Ministers in the Council of Ministers wish to pick up some of the wisdom that we documented it is perfectly right for them to do so. Those of us who are interested need to explain to those who do not know exactly what the work entails.
There are three sections in the title of the debate. I have already dealt with the Council of Europe. Many other hon. Members will deal with the Western European Union, which deals with defence, and the links with Europe which will pervade everything we do in Europe in the next decade. We will endeavour from time to time to bring fresh issues from Strasbourg to the House hoping that we can find further slots in which to discuss them.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I am greatly obliged to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) for providing the House with a great deal of detail about the achievement of the Council of Europe over the past

decade. If I take issue with him at all, it would be over the fact that the Berne convention was slightly earlier than the date that he gave, because it responded to a report that I presented to the Assembly. I am obliged to him and he serves this debate, as he serves the delegation, extremely well.
About five years ago the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) said that he often disagreed with me, but "not today". I often disagree with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, but not today. In introducing this debate, his speech was a model of clarity and could well be copied by educational institutions which want a brief but accurate digest of the current structures of European activity.
I will follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate in criticising the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). In 1975, at the height of the leadership struggle in the Conservative party, I presented a Bill which became the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975. In schedule 2, I included the "blue heath" in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would survive. If I could remove the "blue heath" from that Act after the debate on 14 July, I would. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup did a great disservice to the House by presenting a grossly inaccurate assessment of the current political position in Europe, and an unjust criticism of the Council of Europe.
On 14 July, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup suggested that the Council of Europe was merely a political forum. I believe that Europe needs a political forum, as the Community is bogged down in the morass of detail which always seems to engage it nowadays. Someone had to provide the stage on which history could be made. Those of us who were present when Mr. Gorbachev visited the Council of Europe will long remember that historic moment, just as we have cause for satisfaction, if not pride, in the fact that we took part in the decision to establish guest status.
I would like to entertain a rather selfish hope. When the environment committee of the Council of Europe, which I still chair, visits Yorkshire in October, I hope that the guest members will attend that first meeting of the Council of Europe outside Strasbourg. It would be very fitting if those members came to this country. Although the media in Britain scarcely recognises the existence of the Council of Europe and its many activities, it is fair to say that over the years British parliamentarians from both sides of the House have made a disproportionate contribution to the activities of the Assembly.
I want to follow the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). We need to ensure that a political forum exists, because the pace of change, which is dramatic in 1989, presents Europe and the world with serious challenges. In the debate on 14 July, to which reference has already been made, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) referred to some of the problems that face the world. He said that 22 countries have missile programmes and 17 countries already have missiles in place. We know from meetings of the Western European Union a few months ago that probably 26 countries now have a chemical weapon capacity, and that number may be much higher in a few months' time.
Given that kind of challenge and uncertainty, it is right that the Council of Europe should provide a platform and forum for discussion and provide Russia and the other


eastern European countries with an avenue towards democracy. However, it should do that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli said, with a degree of common sense which must recognise that the process must be gradual. It must have our encouragement and be assisted by material provision and the neighbourly political approach that the Strasbourg assembly can offer.
At this stage of history, the Council of Europe is in a more important position than ever. Therefore, next time he embarks on a foreign affairs debate, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup would be wiser to look more widely. It is all very well for politicians to fix their eyes on the distant uplands of supranational sanity of world peace and international accord, but, if they flounder in the morass of the bureaucracy that they cannot perceive immediately in front of them, they do themselves, their country and their continent a disservice.
As the hon. Members for Hampstead and Highgate and for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) know, the Members of my committee sought to work with members of the European Parliament environment committee last year. We actually took ourselves to Brussels to meet them. It is not an experience that we would wish to repeat. Their main interest was in trying to impress us by telling us how many hundreds upon hundreds of directives they had agreed and how many tonnes of paper they had approved, and they seemed to think that we should automatically go out of existence.
On 14 July the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup referred to Austria. Our friends in Austria and Switzerland today resent the bureaucratic approach that the Community adopts. The bureaucratic approach in Brussels is taken nearly to the point of arrogance. It seems to assume that Austria and Switzerland, being non-member states of the Community, must recognise transport priorities and allow international transport to thunder through their mountain passes. Our Austrian and Swiss colleagues have rightly used the Council of Europe to show that they are not prepared to tolerate that approach.
There is a place for the Council of Europe. The place is historic and the role is substantial. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will sustain that role and that Europe will recognise that it is of continuing importance.

Mr. John Wilkinson: As the shadows of this declining Session lengthen and as the busy world of Parliament is hushed, the small voice of European experience and reason is still heard in the calm reflective atmosphere. How welcome it is. I congratulate the leader of our delegation, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), on introducing the debate. How good, too, it was to hear the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) in this foreign affairs debate. We miss his intellect and incisive wit in defence debates. It was stimulating to hear him ponder on the future of Europe and on how perestroika will affect the Yalta settlement of our continent.
Other hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), have spoken mainly about the Council of Europe. Apart from a brief postscript

to my remarks about the Council of Europe and its relations with eastern Europe, I shall deal with the Western European Union.
Since the Brussels treaty was modified by the Paris protocols in 1954, British interest in the WEU has been spasmodic and often lukewarm. There have, been occasions when the Western Europan Union has been politically useful for the United Kingdom—above all as a point of contact with the six original member countries of the EC following President de Gaulle's veto on Britain's first application to join the European Community, until Britain decided to join the Community in the early 1970s.
However, from the date of Britain's accession in 1973 until the reactivation of the WEU in Rome in 1984, or even until the platform of European security interests was agreed in 1987, the United Kingdom appeared to show little interest in the potential of either the WEU Ministerial Council in London as a forum for concerting west European security policy, or in the potential of the WEU Assembly in Paris—the sole parliamentary institution empowered by treaty to debate defence issues and to make recommendations on security policy to the Councils of Defence and Foreign Ministers of the member countries.
Since, after 1954, NATO was entrusted with responsibility for the military aspects of the Brussels treaty's mutual security provisions, the United Kingdom has always felt ambivalent towards the WEU, lest the attempt to create a stronger western European defence identity within the Atlantic Alliance be seen by the United States as an attempt by seven west European nations, albeit collectively, to usurp the predominant role of the Americans within the NATO alliance.
In practice, as the economic strength of western Europe has grown relative to that of the United States, our American friends, driven by a desire to see the Europeans assume a fairer share of the common burden of Alliance defence, have been more and more supportive of efforts to reinvigorate the WEU, both institutionally and by enlargement through the accession of Portugal and Spain.
Not only are the mutual defence requirements of the Brussels treaty more binding than those of the north Atlantic treaty, but they are not geographically limited as are those of NATO. As the projection of Soviet military power has become increasingly global, the relevance of the out-of-area provisions of WEU's founding treaty have grown. That was emphasised during the Iran-Iraq war, when the WEU was the political instrument for securing joint action in the Gulf by the navies of Britain, Belgium, France, Holland and Italy, with financial assistance from Luxembourg and compensatory naval deployment to the Mediterranean provided by West Germany. That out-of-area naval co-operation much impressed the United States and the WEU was publicly praised for it by President Bush.
It is important not to lose the momentum generated towards reinvigorating and enlarging the WEU. First, the aim should be clearly stated of encouraging all the Euro-group nations to join. Secondly, collocation of the Ministerial Council, agency and Assembly in a single site should be achieved at the earliest possible date. I have said before that county hall, London would have been an ideal headquarters for all the WEU as it has ample office space, committee rooms and, of course, a fine hemicycle. Furthermore, the United Kingdom lacks a major


European institution and, as the most Atlantic of the WEU nations, collocation of all WEU's organs in London would have reassured the Americans.
As it is, the Government favour Brussels for the headquarters of the WEU, but that is fundamentally unacceptable to France and there is no point in antagonising further the WEU's strongest supporter.
If the British Government will still not press for London, Paris should be the chosen headquarters for the WEU. After all, Paris already houses the Assembly and agency, the proposed WEU defence institute is to be located there, France plays a key role in European defence, and other major international institutions, such as the European Space Agency and the OECD, are situated in Paris.

Sir Dudley Smith: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend about London, but I acknowledge the necessity of getting right the location of the headquarters of the WEU. I agree with my hon. Friend that the momentum must be carried on and that we must be vigilant, because I hear rumours that Mr. Delors has established an advisory team on defence. It appears that there may be a takeover in due course.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, as chairman of the committee on defence questions and armaments of the WEU knows much about these matters. He gives a further reason why we must place emphasis on the reinvigoration of the WEU and on making it active.
A revived, enlarged and renewed WEU would be invaluable in concerting a joint western European position on key strategic issues, East-West relations, arms control and out-of-area security problems. I do not think that, through the WEU or any other institution, the west European nations should try to achieve an arms control position different from that of the Americans. It is important that the Americans negotiate on our behalf. The west European nations should have a single position that they can share with their American allies. The European members of NATO could more easily speak with one voice to their American allies and harmonise a single west European position on matters such as Ostpolitik, inter-German relations, which were alluded to by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), technology, credit transfer to Warsaw pact countries, terrorism, low-intensity operations and out-of-area military threats.
Furthermore, the WEU should provide the motor to impel closer European arms co-operation. It should be the political driving force behind the independent European programme group and should help to set the priorities for a European defence research agency to manage common technology projects, funded by a common military research fund.
The WEU should become the forum for the formulation of a west European military space strategy, identifying the technologies required and concerting a military space programme complementary to that of the United States. As the European Space Agency is precluded by statute from military space activity, industry Ministers of WEU member countries who sit on the ESA military council should, ex officio, be co-opted on to the WEU Ministerial Council to assist their Defence Minister colleagues to agree a European military space strategy.
The WEU should be the vehicle for European defence rationalisation by encouraging joint training, exchange postings of personnel, the use of other countries' ranges, exercise areas and test and research facilities. Its aim must be to strengthen the west European contribution within NATO and to mobilise the backing of political, parliamentary and public opinion for that purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate rightly made clear the advantage of the WEU and the Council of Europe. The members of those parliamentary assemblies are members of their national Parliaments. They can mobilise parliamentary and public opinion in their countries and vote the funds necessary to achieve the European objectives pursued through the WEU and the Council of Europe.
Ultimately, a European defence policy co-ordinated in the WEU, and agreed by the United States and Canada, should play a bigger role in guaranteeing western interests worldwide as well as the freedom of member states of the WEU. That European defence policy would draw on the specialist and traditional expertise of European nations within NATO, so that Britain's treaty commitment of 55,000 men and a tactical air force on the continent of Europe, laid down in the Paris protocols of 1954 to the Brussels treaty, could be accommodated and, if necessary, adapted by international agreement to the realities of the dynamic political reform affecting central and eastern Europe and to the changed nature of the East-West security system in Europe brought about by the arms control and disarmament process.
In short, the United Kingdom has a unique opportunity to take a major initiative in the security dimension of European construction. This is the key area of west European co-operation. It is still the responsibility of sovereign states working together for a common purpose outside the European Community framework, but in a manner in which all our peoples and electorates can take pride.
In conclusion, I must allude to the guest status which the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has granted to representatives from the legislative assemblies of Hungary, Poland, the USSR and Yugoslavia. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, whom I welcome to his new functions at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that this aspect of the work of the Council of Europe is worth monitoring closely.
I urge a certain amount of caution. When I listened to President Gorbachev's speech, I felt that it was an overt political attempt to put western Europe within the Soviet sphere of influence. His idea of the common European home is that he should be the landlord and that we should be the tenants. When we grant special status to the USSR, we must remember that the Baltic states, for example, have a right to nationhood that we recognise de jure by not accepting the forcible incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union in 1940. In addition, the Ukraine and Byelorussia have a distinct status in that they are individually recognised by the United Nations. To imagine that human rights in the USSR are rosy would be to delude ourselves. The lot of the refuseniks is a hard one and the Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox churches are still banned.
We are proceeding cautiously and, I believe, wisely. I urge the Minister and the Government to keep a watching


brief on these matters and to do their best to reinvigorate Britain's role within the WEU, because that organisation has considerable potential.

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Appropriation 1989 Act
2. Finance Act 1989
3. Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Act 1989
4. Representation of the People Act 1989
5. Electricity Act 1989
6. Dangerous Dogs Act 1989
7. Human Organs Transplants Act 1989
8. Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989
9. Extradition Act 1989
10. Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
11. Continental Shelf Act 1989
12. Associated British Ports (Hull) Act 1989
13. London Regional Transport (No. 2) Act 1989
14. Hayle Harbour Act 1989
15. Queen Mary and Westfield College Act 1989

Eastern Europe

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Donald Anderson: I wish at the outset to congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) on his distinguished leadership of our delegation to the Council of Europe, a sentiment which will be supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) who spoke eloquently earlier. I was rather puzzled by the addition of the subject of the Western European Union, which is rather less relevant to eastern Europe, but the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) tried skilfully to keep within the terms of the debate. I also welcome the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) to his first foreign affairs appearance. He will be aware that press reports, malicious as ever, claim that he shares the Prime Minister's hostility to the European Community. I am sure that he will do his best to disprove any such suggestion.
The Council of Europe has a chequered history. According to its foundation article, it was
to achieve a greater unity between its Members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage, and facilitating their economic and social progress.
Ernest Bevin disliked it. He said that when that Pandora's box was opened, all sorts of Trojan horses would come out. It was established among the plethora of post-war international organisations as the best level of European co-operation attainable at the time. It continued, even though at times it gave the impression of having lasted longer than was justified by the role that the member countries were prepared to afford to it—in short, no one had the heart to end it.
I recall in 1959, when it was the 10th anniversary of the Council, the Council of Ministers' deputies and other

delegates were suggesting a means of commemorating that anniversary. Some suggested a new palace in Strasbourg and others suggested a statue to Paul-Henri Spaak. The wise Irish delegate was alleged to have suggested meekly that there should be five minutes' silence.
Having once been the desk officer at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office responsible for the Council of Europe, I confess that it is fair to say that for at least part of its history it was searching for a role. From time to time Governments, for their own purposes, have tried to breathe new life and energy into it, just as in the early 1960s, for example, after the failure of the first Gaullist veto, the British Government tried to breathe new life into WEU. I am confident now, as hon. Members who know the Council of Europe better than I will agree, that it has discovered an enhanced and valuable role even greater than the technical conventions, which themselves are important, and the key work that it has done in human rights through the convention, the commission and the court.
What is the enhanced role that the Council can now play? Perhaps one should first clarify what it cannot do, and I was surprised at the tirades of freemasonry from members of the Council against the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). It was not the blue heath, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth suggested—the blasted heath might be a more appropriate simile.
One can appreciate why feathers were ruffled, as the right hon. Gentleman's views were clearly somewhat outdated when he suggested that the Council was no more than a talk shop and
a useful forum for discussion and nothing more.
I concede that he played down the positive contribution that the Council would make. In mitigation, however, he went on to say, as the second leg of his criticism, that the Prime Minister's new-found praise for the Council of Europe raised questions as to whether the British Government want to weaken the Community rather than strengthen it."—[Official Report, 14 July 1989; Vol. 156, col 1269.]
In other words, there were grounds for suggesting that the signals given by the Government in their recent enthusiasm for the Council suggested a diversionary tactic for avoiding European Community obligations and giving a wrong signal, which could be added to others, in respect of our commitment to the Community. That is a serious point. There has traditionally been insensitivity towards the Community, as was illustrated by the recent changes in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and by yesterday's speech, showing a lack of patience, by President Mitterrand.
Of course the Council of Europe's social charter is important, but it is not obligatory on those who have signed it. It is essentially declaratory and is wholly different from the aims of the European Community social charter as promulgated by Mr. Delors and others. It is fair to say that President Gorbachev exaggerated what the Council could do when he spoke at the Palais de l'Europe on 6 July. He spoke about the pan-European community of the next century and about Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. Is that anything more than rhetorical nonsense? Is he seriously suggesting that the Soviet Union can be split into two, into its European and Asian halves? When President Gorbachev talks about the "common European home", is


he conveniently forgetting that a large wall with watchtowers on the greater part of it runs through the parlour of that home?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman has told us that he was a desk officer at the Foreign Office, so he surely recalls that Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe and that a substantial part of Turkey is in Asia. Perhaps a precedent has been set and the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Soviet Union may not be so accurate as he might wish.

Mr. Anderson: Yes, I shall say a few words about Turkey. I believe that Metternich said that Asia begins at the Landstrasse Hauptstrasse from Vienna, which might irritate some of our Hungarian friends and others, but perhaps I had better not open the vast volume that is Turkey at this stage.
Having said that, it is only fair to respond to the Gorbachev initiative and say that as yet there has been an inadequate western response to the vision that he put before the Council.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup was at least partly correct in the criticisms that he made during our recent foreign affairs debate. The Council of Europe is a vehicle for intergovernmental co-operation through Ministers and Ministers' deputies. Of course, the consultative assembly was initially just that—a consultative assembly—bringing together parliamentarians, but as the catalogue of achievements set out so well by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) has shown, it has developed into something much more. It now has a new role at a time when the super-power hegemony in both eastern and western Europe is diminishing and when western European countries are growing closer together and, paradoxically, eastern European countries are moving further apart.
I stress to the Government that the Council is not and cannot be an alternative to the European Community, but it has special capacities which the European Community does not have, due to its membership and its role. Like a well-tried brand of beer, the Council can reach places which the European Community cannot. With the accession of Finland in May, all the countries of western Europe—all of democratic Europe—are part of the Council. The process is being completed. I welcome the opening to the East that is shown by guest status which, I understand, is analogous to the observer status that is possible under statute.
I welcome the enormous and impressive work that the Council has done in conventions. It is clear that there is a need for cross-frontier East-West co-operation in the areas to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth referred, such as the environment, drugs, terrorism, television and the other areas that have been mentioned. I welcome the initiatives that the Council has taken in bridge building in eastern Europe, the Mediterranean and the middle east. It is an example to other institutions, and can be considered a core body. It is at the centre of a constellation of other relationships, and sets a precedent for Turkey's relationship with the core or inner group—the European Community.
Human rights and the commitment to them must be an essential prerequisite of any relationship with the Council

of Europe, and that is consistent with the reasons for its establishment. I was therefore glad to see that adherence to the Helsinki process, and the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, was designated necessary to the new guest status and so has put a sine qua non on that relationship.
I am struck by the pace of change in eastern Europe. I lived in Hungary in the early 1960s, and I contrast that experience with an experience I had on 15 March this year, when I watched a procession of Hungarians of all ages and classes on their new national day, as opposed to the November national day. Last Sunday, I had a telephone call from a Hungarian friend—Rozsik Gabor—who said that he had just won a by-election against the official candidate. That is the first victory by an opposition candidate since 1947, and gives some indication of the pace of change in central Europe.
The Council of Europe embodies the wider European tradition, which is based on the Judaeo-Christian ethos. Human rights are fundamental to the ideals of individual liberty and common culture. Yes, the Council of Europe is limited, but it is valuable. It can help to re-establish those traditions, and it does not deal just with technical matters such as conventions—it is a valuable political tool. The Council becomes more necessary as the super-powers reduce their role in Europe. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said, central Europe needs to be redefined. The future role of Germany, both politically and economically, within central Europe needs to be redefined. The German question is back on the agenda.
We should be true to those traditions. When we consider the valuable role that the Council can play, we should not be sidetracked from those principles of individual liberty and pluralism which were fundamental to the founding fathers of the Council in 1949.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) raised this important matter. It is appropriate that he should have raised issues relating to the Council of Europe in its 40th anniversary year—of which he is as proud as the rest of the House. Britain was one of the founding members of the Council of Europe and we remain committed to the principles on which it was founded.
My hon. Friend has given, and continues to give, magnificent service to the Council of Europe, and to the Western European Union. He has been a member of the assembly since 1983, and has been leader of the all-party delegation since 1987. I should like to take this opportunity to pay a warm and sincere tribute to his distinguished leadership of that delegation, and to his colleagues in the delegation, who work so hard in the service of the House and of the Council.
I should also like to thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have wished me well on my debut. It is not quite my debut in a foreign affairs debate, but it is as a Foreign Office Minister. I have, of course, participated in rather more debates about European Community directives at a late hour than I like to think about, and matters relating to the Community are by no means new


to me. Nevertheless, I look forward keenly to an expanded role, and I am glad of the opportunity to respond to the debate at this especially auspicious time.
If the way in which the debate has been conducted is any indication of the way in which debates are conducted in the Council of Europe—and I am sure that it is—we have some idea of the Council's important role. Members from both sides of the House debate important matters in a serious, well-informed and measured way. That bodes very well for the future of both the Council and the Western European Union. I am a newcomer to these matters, and I shall look to my hon. Friend and his colleagues for help and guidance.
We are witnessing momentous changes in eastern Europe. A year ago, reform in Poland was stagnating. No one could then have foreseen that by now Poland would have had its freest elections since the Communists came to power after the war; nor could anyone have foreseen that the result would be an impressive victory for Solidarity, which the Communist party—to its great credit—accepted. We all hope that the local elections, due in 18 months, will be fully free.
Great changes are taking place in Hungary as well. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred to a member of an opposition party winning a by-election: a small sign, but one of considerable significance. The reburial of Imre Nagy in June was also a potent symbol of change, and the Hungarian leadership's commitment to introducing a multi-party system is greatly to be welcomed. Hungary, too, now has its round table, and may well be the first eastern European country to hold fully democratic elections.
These are historic steps forward. The post-war period has been a difficult and tragic time for eastern Europe, but we must be realistic. Even for the peoples of Poland and Hungary difficult times still lie ahead, but the crucial point is that they are increasingly in control of their destinies. They have real choices to make, and their decisions will have enormous significance, not only for them but—we hope—for the rest of eastern Europe. Let us also not forget the less fortunate nations whose Governments have yet to go down the path of reform and greater freedom, but there is pressure for change in all those countries, and in the end it must prevail.
As has been said, the Council of Europe has an important role to play in this time of change. That was clearly recognised by the Committee of Ministers in the political declaration adopted on 5 May. I wish to refer particularly to the parts of the documents that concern relations with eastern European countries: they concentrate on the co-operation that can encourage greater openness and respect for human rights and contribute significantly to reform and democracy. It must be right, however, for the Council of Europe, in developing further links with the eastern Europeans, to follow the appropriate course for each country.
We must take full account of the actual process of reform in those countries when agreeing new forms of co-operation. We must look for real achievements and not for empty rhetoric, and co-operation must aim to support the reform process. We endorse that aim, and will support increased co-operation where there is substantial work to be done.
It is equally important to follow the guidelines set out in the political declaration. Each case must be judged on its merits; there is no virtue in pursuing contacts for their own

sake. There can be no question of giving a Council of Europe "seal of approval" to countries that refuse to embrace proper reforms.
As has been said, the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe has also played an important role in developing links between the Council and eastern Europe. On 11 May, the assembly unanimously approved a resolution which, as we have heard, set out special guest status in the assembly for certain east European assemblies. In June the assembly decided that Poland, Hungary, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia should be granted such status. Delegations from those countries were able to take their seats in the assembly for the visit of President Gorbachev in July.
I understand that, as I think the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) suggested, special guest status will be comparable to the rights that delegations with observer status enjoy. Of course, only Israel currently has that status. As I understand it the delegations will be able to speak at the assembly with the prior approval of the committee concerned. I must echo the notes of caution sounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate, who was rapporteur of the assembly's political affairs committee. He emphasised that the credentials of those legislative assemblies requesting such status should be strictly examined each year to ensure I hat they fulfil the conditions for participation.
Of course we hope for further and wider ranging reforms in eastern Europe, but we must also be vigilant to ensure that there is no regression. It is not just in the European assembly that the eastern Europeans have shown an interest. Member states have agreed that both Hungary and Poland can accede to the European cultural convention. That is one of a number of Council of Europe conventions that are open to ratification by non-members, and the Soviet Union has likewise expressed interest. Other non-members may also pursue this line. We will, of course, have to consider all cases on their individual merits, and ratification must depend on the country's ability to meet fully all the requirements of the convention.
There remains the question of closer association with—and possibly membership of—the Council of Europe, but this must depend upon a degree of democracy and a respect for human rights which is consistent with the Council's founding statute. Such conditions do not yet exist. There is a danger that an excess of enthusiasm might lead to the dilution of the Council's important basic principles, a cornerstone of which is the European convention on human rights. We look forward to the day when some of these countries can fulfil those obligations; and the sooner the better.
Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), spoke about the development of links between the Western European Union and eastern bloc countries. Although the Council of Europe seems to be a more appropriate body than the WEU for increasing links with eastern Europe, the WEU assembly can play a useful role in talking to parliamentarians and to other opinion formers in the Soviet Union and other eastern European countries. It is good news that the assembly has already begun exchanges with the Supreme Soviet. I hope that these can be developed in future, and perhaps expanded to take in equivalent bodies in other such countries—notably, perhaps, Poland and Hungary.
I have seen the assembly's report of 3 May this year on the development of East-West relations and western European security. Since the publication of the report, there have been a number of developments that the authors would surely welcome—notably the conclusion of a successful NATO summit at the end of May, which included agreement on a comprehensive concept of arms control and disarmament. That document provides a coherent and imaginative basis for the development of the Alliance's role in both protecting security and improving East-West relations through arms control.
There has also been the presentation on 13 July in Vienna of proposals by NATO for reducing the number of combat aircraft, helicopters and United States and Soviet military personnel. This followed the tabling of proposals in March on reductions in tanks, armoured troop carriers and artillery.
All these developments illustrate the way in which the western Alliance, including the WEU members, are vigorously pursuing a reduction in conventional forces in Europe. The initiative lies firmly with the west, and we look to the eastern countries to respond constructively when the talks are resumed in Vienna in September. We shall, of course, continue to follow these events closely within the WEU in the run up to this autumn's ministerial council meeting.
It remains the key aim of the WEU to promote the Alliance's cohesion and the maintenance of credible deterrent capability, with full United States and Canadian participation, at a time of rapid change in eastern Europe. It also remains a key aim to ensure that arms control will enhance stability as well as reduce force levels. Within that framework, I hope that the assembly will make its own very special contribution to increasing links between East and West.
As I have said, the main focus for building links between East and West should be the Council of Europe. It was indeed appropriate that President Gorbachev should visit Strasbourg in the Council's 40th anniversary year. The Council of Europe is not just some comfortable club. It embodies our most fundamental values. Those values must not be compromised.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that a good NATO ally, in a key strategic location, that fulfils all the criteria for membership—Turkey—has formally applied to join the WEU? In the Council, will my hon. Friend try to persuade his opposite numbers to listen favourably to Turkey's wish to accede in full to the Brussels treaty and join the WEU? That would be greatly to the benefit of the organisation.

Mr. Maude: I hear what my hon. Friend says. He will appreciate that I am new to these matters and I hope that he will forgive me if I do not respond fully to that point. I shall look carefully at what he has said.
Adenauer, that great European statesman, subscribed to the two virtues of unity and freedom. He would have welcomed the changes in eastern Europe today, and the role that the Council and the WEU have played in them. He, too, would have counselled us today—as he did in his own lifetime—that freedom must come before unity; unity yes, but freedom first. Those who wholeheartedly adopt the values of the Council of Europe will welcome fellow inhabitants of the common European house.
This has been a valuable opportunity to debate the merits of the Council of Europe. I am grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate. I am well aware of the hard work that they do and of the distinguished contribution that the Council of Europe makes. I urge them to continue to pay it good attention. I assure all of them that the Government take extremely seriously what the Council of Europe does.

Orders of the Day — North East Shipbuilders Limited

Mr. Bob Clay: I am thankful for the opportunity to raise with the House what I and many of my hon. Friends regard as a major national scandal. It is not some regional, parochial matter or one that concerns simply an important national industry: it is a matter that in many ways exposes the most appalling incompetence, and concerns issues of great constitutional importance to the relationship between the Government and the European Commission.
I shall start simply by stating what are by now irrefutable facts about the reality of what has happened. On the River Wear are the shipyards of North East Shipbuilclers Limited, regarded as technologically the most advanced in Europe. Many other shipbuilding nations consider them to be the most enviably advanced merchant shipbuilding yards. We have a highly skilled, superb work force, mainly either languishing on the dole or working on short-term contracts away from the town, their home and their families.
Two organisations are willing, here and now, to purchase those shipyards. Both had clear signals earlier this year that the Government and British Shipbuilders were open to offers. Both have made it plain that they do not require any intervention fund subsidy on future contracts should they acquire the shipyards. Both have orders ready to place immediately in the yards. These are orders on their own account, as both are shipowners. We are not talking about orders from a third party. The ship-owners are prepared to place orders in the yards, if they secure the purchase of them, and it is now an undeniable fact, contrary to the Government's expectations last year, that the market for merchant shipbuilding is rapidly increasing throughout the world. The market for the categories and sizes of ship that the Wearside yards build is increasing even more speedily.
It is ironic that we are hearing literally daily from ship-owners and ship brokers in Europe and other parts of the world of the increasing difficulties that they are having in placing contracts in any yards. The cutting continued for so long that Europe and many other parts of the world are moving towards serious under-capacity.
We have superb yards, willing buyers, no requirement for public subsidy, a privatisation process that started at the instigation of the Government, two owners with massive financial resources and no one querying their ability financially to sustain the yards in any opening or teething period. How can it be that the yards remain closed and that the Government refuse to allow them to reopen?
As the pathetic saga has unravelled, the Government have been forced to say that they got it wrong. They have done so in a mealy-mouthed way. They can no longer dispute, despite their persistent refusal to accept this earlier, that there is clear, statistically undeniable evidence of an upturn in orders. That vindicates the position that Opposition Members took last year, when we argued that, although we were opposed to privatisation in principle, if the Government wanted to persist with privatisation they should at least get the timing right. We argued throughout that an upturn in the market was coming and that it would be logical to privatise a yard that had orders and could take more orders rather than a yard that was facing

difficulty with an existing order and had nothing else on the order book. How right we have been proved about that.
There is plenty of evidence that the Government got it wrong last year about possible new ownership. Early last year the directors of North East Shipbuilders Limited drew up their own plans to rationalise the yard—it would have been a painful process—and to retract to an efficient one-site operation with one outfitting facility and one shipbuilding yard. The board of British Shipbuilders rejected the plan on the ground that it was too late to commence it because the Government had already begun the privatisation process. I ask the Minister to tell us whether the decision of British Shipbuilders to reject the proposal of NESL's directors was the result of Government instructions or advice.
As last year unfolded, it became clear that another bizarre matter had been misunderstood and that the Government had got it wrong. A document was deposited in the Library by the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), who is now the Secretary of State for Social Security, which sets out the Government's record on some of the unfortunate matters to which I have referred. The document sets out the Government's account of how it all happened.
At the end of the second page, and as part of the explanation of why the Government were in such a rush to privatise NESL, there appears the following sentence:
This applied especially to any bidder interested in the possible series of orders from the Cuban shipping company Mambisa.
What was meant by "this applied"? Intervention fund support was likely to be reduced after 31 December 1988. It was therefore important, we are now told, in the Government's view to have a prospective purchaser in place by that date so as not to lose a little intervention fund support on the Cuban order. It is extraordinary for the Government now to say that the urgency of securing that Cuban order was a critical factor in the timing of privatisation—particularly since, only months before, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) told the House repeatedly that the Cuban order did not exist. That is something else that the Government got wrong.
The Government also said that there were no serious bidders for NESL last year, yet they now say that one should not be suspicious about the way in which the West German bidder, Egon Oldendorff, came into the picture this year, when it was around as a serious bidder all last year. How can the Government say, on the one hand, that last year there were no serious bidders, and, on the other, that a bidder now regarded as fairly serious was around last year too?
The document placed in the Library by the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), to which I referred earlier, makes mention of the Government's belief, in respect of bids made this year, that
Against the experience of the previous autumn, shipbuilding proposals seemed unlikely.
In other words, the Government restated their view that after last year's experience, it seemed unlikely that shipbuilding proposals would emerge during the stay of execution in the first six months of this year. The Government were wrong again. There were two substantial bids. That might explain why, when the


Government were confronted by not one but two serious bids, they found themselves in a state of shock and did nothing for a considerable length of time.
It is extraordinary that the Government should state in a document deposited in the Library that they did not expect any serious shipbuilding proposals this year, when the chairman of British Shipbuilders, Mr. John Lister, repeatedly expressed the view last year that a probable outcome of the whole sorry scenario would be that serious bidders would wait until the yards' closure was announced before moving in to buy—in the mistaken belief that they would be able to obtain their assets more cheaply and easily. How wrong the Government were. Nevertheless, that view was persistently, if not publicly, expressed. The Government must have been well aware of that view of the chairman of British Shipbuilders, so it is extraordinary that they should now plead that they never expected any such thing to happen.
The Government's most serious error was their understanding of the European Commission's attitude in the event of a renotification by the Government of the reopening of one yard, or both yards, in the light of a serious bidder coming forward. How did the Government get all that wrong? I shall briefly run through some of the key dates this year. Bids were not made suddenly in June or July this year. At the end of January, the Anglo-Greek bidders wrote to British Shipbuilders expressing interest in shipbuilding in Sunderland and asking to visit the yards immediately. On 22 February, the Anglo-Greek bidders met British Shipbuilders and announced that they wanted to buy the yards. On 9 March, they wrote again, referring to the meeting of 22 February. On 6 April, after wondering what else they had to do, the Anglo-Greek bidders made a formal offer, subject to contract.
According to a written answer I received from the Minister today, on 13 April the West German bidder expressed interest too. Finally, on 10 April a senior civil servant spoke to a senior official of the European Commission. The document in the Library states clearly that the difficulties that have now arisen over British Shipbuilders' commercial borrowing were not mentioned in the 10 April discussion. The document also reveals that, on 11 April, bidders were informed of difficulties that might arise with the European Commission.
There are two different versions of that development. Certainly bidders were informed that, if they wanted to continue receiving intervention fund subsidy, there would be problems with the European Commission. But at least one of the bidders believes that it was informed that if it did not want intervention fund subsidy there should not be a major difficulty. It is not just one of the bidders who believes that to be the case, but British Shipbuilders, which was selling the yards. It also takes the view that it was only much later in late June that it was made clear that even a non-intervention funded bid could produce considerable difficulties.
It is interesting that, after the first formal discussion between the Government and the Commission, a discussion that should have taken place much earlier, advice to bidders about difficulties that could arise with the European Commission was never even put in writing. A written answer that I received today confirms that that advice was only given orally. What an extraordinary way

for the Department of Trade and Industry to behave. But how convenient that it was only given orally, because now we can only take one or the other side's word for it and we shall never know precisely what advice was given, as there is no written documentary proof of it.
On 17 April, the Anglo-Greek bidders, in response to whatever advice they were given, put in a further offer making it clear that they did not want any subsidy. On 3 May the West German bidder did the same. Even on 7 June, when the right hon. Member for Braintree gave evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, there were only the slightest hints, if one really read between the lines, that a serious difficulty would arise with the Commission from a non-intervention funded bid.
Finally, on 27 June, the right hon. Member for Braintree met Sir Leon Brittan, the Commissioner responsible for competition, and discovered that it was alleged that the Commission would reopen the whole question of what happened last December and would, if the British Government renotified it of a reopening of the yard, place in the way serious obstacles that would effectively make it commercially impossible for anyone to take on the yards.
We are not talking about an act of God. This was not due to the weather. I am not particularly interested in whether responsibility lies 100 per cent. with the EC, 100 per cent. with the British Government, 50:50 between the two or any proportion that anyone likes to devise. It lies 100 per cent. in some proportion between the two—no one else.
It is extraordinary that people were told that the Government were open to offers, that they received offers and that weeks and months went by. This is a serious case of commercial misrepresentation. If people are told that it is possible for them to buy something and if they then come forward and meet all the commercial requirements only to be told that a sale was not possible in the first place, that is commercial misrepresentation. It is about time that we stopped the pathetic business of the European Commission saying that the Government should have known all along and the Government saying that the European Commission never told them and that they did not know what to ask anyway. One or both of them should own up. If the Commission is right now, the Government must have been wrong then, or vice versa.
The crucial matter is that of unsubsidised bids. On 8 February the hon. Member for Braintree wrote to me. His words are clear and they have been quoted before. He talked about the difficulties that would arise if bidders wanted intervention funding, and he said:
My comments are of course related to the issue of subsidised shipbuilding. Should anyone wish to purchase some or all of the Sunderland facilities for shipbuilding without any form of assistance, that would entail only the negotiation with BS of acceptable terms for acquiring the facilities in question.
We now have the pathetic spectacle of Ministers and civil servants scurrying around trying to work out how to explain that. We are being told that subsidy in that case did not necessarily just mean the intervention fund; it meant the strange mechanism whereby, if the yard reopened, British Shipbuilders' past losses, accepted by the Commission last December, could be regarded as triggering off commercial debts that would be imposed on a new owner of the yard. If that is the case, it would have been impossible to sell the yards in the first place. If the Government are saying that what they meant by "subsidy"


in February was that a new buyer would inherit £90 million worth of commercial risk with the yard, the yards were unsaleable, and bidders should have been told that. In that case, the letter should have been rewritten as follows: "My comments are, of course, related to impossible shipbuilding. Should anyone wish to purchase some or all of the Sunderland facilities by invoking a miracle, that would entail only the negotiation with British Shipbuilders of acceptable terms for acquiring the facilities in question." It is nonsense.
The commercial misrepresentation went back long before this year. In a sense, if what the Commission is now saying is correct, it was never possible to sell the yards. We are told that British Shipbuilders' losses were so great that its accounts and the subsidy that had already gone in until the end of last year were so far in breach of the sixth directive that something had to close. Let us put it this way. If the Government had gone to the Commission in December and said, "We have a buyer for the Appledore yard in Devon, we have a buyer for the Ferguson yard on the Clyde, a buyer for the Clark Kincaid engine works and also a buyer for Sunderland"—much bigger than the rest of the operations put together—what would the Commission have said? Would it have said, "That's okay; fine; get on with it," in which case the logic must be that the Commission cannot object to Sunderland reopening now? The Commission's objection to Sunderland reopening now must surely mean that it was going to insist on a pretty substantial closure of some kind last December.
The Government must have known that all along. They could have done the correct thing and refused to accept that the Commission had a right to close British shipyards. If they did not want to do that, they could at least have done the honest thing politically and said, "We accept the Commission's rights to impose closures on us. We shall now choose which yards to close and which of the remainder to put up for sale." Instead, they put the whole lot up for sale, knowing that they could not sell all the yards. That was commercial misrepresentation as well.
The Government nearly got away with it. What went wrong was this: the hidden agenda last year was to close Sunderland because it had no orders. Then something very embarrassing happens. One of the world's biggest shipping lines, Mambisa of Cuba, wanted to place what would then have been the biggest merchant order in the world with Sunderland, because it thought that Sunderland was a very good shipyard from which it had had many good ships in the past. The then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster pretended that the Cubans were not there; he pretended that they wanted unreasonable terms; he pretended this and pretended that, but the Cubans just would not go away. It was extremely embarrassing and it prolonged the whole business.
Let me get back to what is happening now. The Government's failure to allow the reopening of the yard revolves around the attitude of the European Commission—that, at least, is the excuse that they are using. But in addition to the European Commission, we have a European Parliament made up of elected representatives. A deputation from Sunderland, which included me, went over to Strasbourg a couple of days ago, and there is now a resolution before the European Parliament, which was laid by Alan Donnelly, MEP for Tyne and Wear. It
Calls on the Commission to withdraw any contemplated actions that deter the Government of the United Kingdom

from proceeding with a sale of Sunderland shipyards to buyers who wish to utilise these facilities for shipbuilding purposes and who do not require Intervention Fund support on future contracts.
That resolution has been presented to Henrique Baron Crespo, the new President of the European Parliament, who has said to me and to others in the deputation that he hopes that the resolution will receive sympathetic and serious attention from the Parliament. I am sure that it will, and, moreover, it is a Parliament which is looking to assert more authority vis-à-vis the unelected Commission.
Perhaps the British Government will say that the European Parliament is a meaningless and irrelevant institution and a waste of time and money. Unless they say that, they must accept in logic that if the European Parliament passes the resolution after due process, the European Commission may take some note of it. If the European Commission takes notice, the obstacle which, according to the Government is the only thing standing in the way of the reopening of the yards, has been removed. I hope that the Government can give us an assurance tonight that, as long as the European Parliament is considering the matter, they will do nothing to break up the assets or even sell the assets of the yards to anyone other than a shipbuilder until the European Parliament has had the opportunity to express its view to the Commission.
Furthermore, when I refer to the Commission, it is clear that the Commission is not embodied solely in Sir Leon Brittan. We were told over the past two days that at least one other Commissioner seriously questions Sir Leon Brittan's judgment in relating the Sunderland enterprise zone to a renotification of reopening the shipyards.
Whatever Sir Leon Brittan may propose to the rest of the Commission, he will need nine votes to get his proposal through—if it goes to a vote. The Government should bear that in mind, because they have been far too ready to accept that as one Commissioner, who may be the lead Commissioner in the matter, is apparently presenting obstacles that is a good enough excuse for them to throw up their hands and say, "We can do nothing more about this."
The Government have got away with this extraordinary situation because it revolves around historic incidents and very technical European directives about an industry which, although it is important, is sadly regarded as rather regional. It is not a clapped-out sunset industry, it is a high-technology sunrise industry and the country will rue the day that it loses the industry. Nevertheless, the issues are historical, technical and complicated. They are woven with incompetence and deceit. Sadly, the national media in this country have for some reason not grasped what is happening.
Therefore, I must provide a metaphor to explain the sheer scale of the scandal and lunacy: a patient lies in a bed. He does not have an incurable illness or disease. However, he is profoundly sick and on a life-support machine. Misdiagnosing hunger as a duodenal ulcer, the surgeon operates and cuts out the appendix by mistake. One inappropriate drug regime after another has produced more and more catastrophic side effects.
It transpires that the doctors have been reading the wrong text books which, in any case, were in a foreign language that they did not really understand. So obsessed are they with their absurd remedial measures that they will sacrifice the patient to test the cure.
The chief nurse is frequently drunk. Most of the competent medical staff have fled the asylum for early retirement or other jobs. The hospital manager—or the manager up until a few days ago—is a decent well-meaning soul who has developed quite an attachment to the patient. From time to time, he intervenes to stop the final fatality occurring. Unfortunately, he has little idea of the reality of the hospital's extraordinary environment beyond his own office door, other than an occasional embarrassed visit to the sick room. Even when he begins to suspect that something has gone profoundly wrong, he cannot face the consequences, let along decide how to put matters right.
The hospital manager's secretary really runs the show. He is an extremely clever man, but is showing some signs of schizophrenia. So carried away has he become with demonstrating his administrative genius that he often forgets that the purpose of it all is to return patients to health.
The hospital room has become a nightmare. The patient's family sends for a second opinion. Having overcome the hospital's misdirections about its location, and after, on several occasions, being asked to come back next week, the new doctor eventually examines the patient. "Basically," the doctor says, "the patient should be fed rather than starved. Stop the drugs and try some exercise. I will take the patient away and I am pretty sure that I can effect a cure. I will nurture the patient and give him a new life. I will charge no fee for this responsibility and I will ask for no support in future. Indeed, I will pay you generously if you will allow me to take your patient away and care for him." "Sorry," says the hospital, "It is against our rules unless we switch off the life support machine."
Towards the end of the sorry saga, the patient's constituency Member of Parliament is increasingly asked why he does not just let the poor old thing die in peace. Few seem to understand his outrage at such a question.
To end the medical metaphor, if, in medical terms, this crazed and macabre farce finally leads to the murderous outcome that I have described, eventually all those responsible will go to trial. Some might get away with more than others, but they will all be barred from medical parctice for life—they will be struck off. Eventually, the political equivalent will catch up with those responsible for the wanton and unnecessary destruction of jobs in Sunderland and 600 years of proud shipbuilding history.
Even tonight it is not too late. There is a new Secretary of State and a new Minister dealing with shipbuilding. They should take a deep breath and think again. If they must continue their obsession with the European Commission's interpretation and their interpretation of the rules, they should go back to the European Commission and say, "It is nonsense that a directive which, rightly or wrongly, was designed to reduce subsidy in European shipbuilding is now being used to eliminate the one yard that is going to have a go at shipbuilding without subsidy—a contradiction in terms."
They should say, "We are renotifying you that we have accepted one of these bidders. We are going ahead and we are prepared to negotiate the consequences, but we are not prepared to have the absurd situation in which one of the best shipyards in the world, with a willing and skilled work force looking for jobs, and with ships waiting to be built when the world is booming with orders, is allowed finally to close." The Government really must think again.

Mr. Chris Mullin: My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) has made an impressive, detailed and damning case. I hope that the Minister will address the serious charges that he made. I look forward to the day when the Select Committee gets its teeth into this matter, because it will not go away. The Minister has been in his present office only a few days, but the matter will be in his in-tray and those of his masters for some time yet.
I regret that the recent reshuffle means that the Ministers who presided over the closure of NESL and the disastrous events of the past 12 months are not here to account for their stewardship. All that we can hope for tonight—it is no criticism of the Minister—is a mechanical recital of a brief and as much bluster and synthetic indignation as the Minister can muster—having seen the Minister on previous occasions in his Home Office days, we know that that is quite a lot.
One of the problems in engaging in a rational dialogue on the fate of our shipbuilding industry is the frequency with which those responsible for the shipbuilding industry change. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North will have a better idea than I of the exact count, but there have been more Ministers responsible for shipbuilding than coups in Bolivia.
Many people in Sunderland feel betrayed by what has happened in the past 12 months or so. My hon. Friend has documented what has happened. My role tonight is merely to underline some of the points that he made and to draw attention to one or two other aspects.
One of the consistent themes in what has happened to our shipyards in Sunderland is the constant moving of the goalposts. When privatising industries, it is customary to fatten them up first to make them attractive to potential investors. It is unusual for an enterprise to be put on the market when its fortunes are lowest and when it is liable to be least attractive to potential investors. Yet that was the moment when the Department of Trade and Industry chose to privatise NESL. Just at the moment—it seemed to be disastrous at the time—when the Danish ferries order fell through, the Department saw the opportunity to close NESL once and for all.
It reckoned without a number of factors. First of all, it saw no orders. People in Sunderland are not daft; they are quite realistic—if there are no ships to be built, there cannot be shipyards. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North said, there was a potential Cuban order worth £110 million. The Department of Trade and Industry declined to take that order seriously, I was present, along with my hon. Friend and others, at a meeting at the DTI when the then Secretary of State—which is two Secretaries of State ago—the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), admitted that he had not taken the Cuban order seriously, although he now did. That was one rare piece of frankness in this sorry saga. In about June of last year—some time before my hon. Friend had raised the matter—the Cuban order was at last being taken seriously.
A new problem then arose—there were no buyers for the yard. We had a yard and an order, but we did not have any buyers. Many of us took the view, which was shared by Lloyd's List, that the decent thing to do would be to go

for the order, and any other orders that were available, and worry about finding a buyer afterwards. However, that was not what happened.
In December last year, we were told by the newest Minister responsible, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), that there were no suitable buyers, so the yard would have to close. The right hon. Gentleman was, however, decent enough to say that he would do his best to keep the assets intact, in the hope that some use could be made of them in the near future. What I suspect he did not expect was that not one but two potential buyers would shortly emerge. As my hon.Friend the Member for Sunderland, North has said, it was a situation that the Department failed entirely to predict and, even when it was staring it in the face, it took some time to wake up to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North quoted the letter to him of 8 February, in which we were told that, while there would be a problem, because of the closure in December, with anyone wishing to undertake subsidised shipbuilding—God knows there is no shipyard in the western world, even now, that does not enjoy some degree of subsidy——

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Anywhere in the whole world.

Mr. Mullin: Yes, anywhere in the whole world, as my hon. Friend said.
We were told, however, that there would be no problem should buyers come forward who were prepared to buy the yard without subsidy. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, quoted the precise passage from a letter, which I think bears quoting again. I hope that the Minister will deal with it, because no one from the Government has dealt with it so far. It said:
Should anyone wish to purchase some or all of the Sunderland facilities for shipbuilding without any form of assistance, that would entail only the negotiation with British Shipbuilders of acceptable terms for acquiring the facilities in question.
We cannot have it clearer than that.
According to the document deposited in the Library, on 17 April the first of the two potential buyers, the Anglo-Greek interest, told the Ministry that it would require no subsidy. So from 17 April, the DTI had one buyer, who was not after any subsidy. By 3 May it had two—the Olendorf company had also come forward as a buyer and it, too, did not require a subsidy. There was no greater evidence of the shipyard's viability, because those were commercial interests—they were not charities. They were not doing it for their love for North East Shipbuilders or necessarily the people of Sunderland. They would be the first to admit that they were doing it for commercial interests.
Therefore, by 17 April and 3 May, those hard-headed commercial interests thought that it was possible to build unsubsidised ships in North East Shipbuilders. Such had been the strengthening of the market and the rise in shipbuilding prices around the world, that it was rightly predicted by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, and others with an interest in these matters, that unsubsidised shipbuilding would be possible.
At that time, the goalposts were moved again. There was talk of a threat to the enterprise zone that the Minister had announced in December and of the new owners inheriting British Shipbuilders' debts of £90 million. It is


hard to believe that those threats were serious, because no one purchasing a new enterprise for between £7 million or £9 million would contemplate taking on debts of £90 million. They would have said, a long time before that, "We are not interested, good night." The potential purchasers did not say that, the goalposts were moved again and everything was done to discourage them, no doubt in the hope that they would go away. However, they persisted, which was a tribute to the strength of the market and to the changes that had occurred in it over the previous six or 12 months.
We were told, finally, that the European Commission would not accept the deal. We were further told that the Minister was not aware of that possibility until he visited Sir Leon Brittan on 27 June, but I do not accept that. A copy of Sir Leon's letter dated 12 July has now been placed in the Library. Presumably, it is the most authoritative statement of the Commission's view, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North said, he is only one Commissioner and if there were a vote there is a possibility that he would be out-voted.
Although Sir Leon's letter is not very helpful, it does not mention an outright objection to the sale of the yards, nor does it say that the enterprise zone would have to go. It merely talks of a "reappraisal", and not of cutting off aid altogether but of reducing it.
There is good reason to believe that the use of the Commission as an alibi was exaggerated and that if there had been the political will there would have been no difficulty in finding a way to reopen the yards as commercial enterprises.
If Ministers set out to sink what remained of our merchant shipbuilding capacity, they could not have done better. Who needs foreign competition when we have the Department of Trade and Industry?
The Department of Trade and Industry grossly under-estimated the revival of the market. A cynical interpretation of the letter dated 8 February, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, would be that it never dawned on Ministers when they undertook to keep assets intact until 30 June that there would be any takers. If that interpretation is correct, it suggests that they were woefully misinformed and ill-advised.
The Department of Trade and Industry and all concerned grossly under-estimated the strength of feeling in Sunderland. The industry did not begin 30 or 40 years ago; it has deep roots in the culture of Sunderland. For 600 years, ships had been built on the Wear, and people not much older than me can recall when one could not walk in the main streets of Sunderland without hearing the sound of hammers on rivets coming from the shipyards that lined its banks. Generations of people in Sunderland owe their livelihoods to the shipyards. They are deeply proud of the yards, and for good reason. There was a time, within the living memory of most people, when the yards accounted for more than half the world's merchant shipping output.
Not least of the Department's mistakes was to under-estimate the strength of feeling in Sunderland. The whole town has been united in our campaign to save the yards. All political parties on the borough council have lent their voices to this, as has the chamber of commerce, and the local newspaper, which gives donations to the

Conservative party, has been unstinting in its support. Above all, the work force has united under shop stewards who command greater respect than any I have come across. I pay tribute to all those who have played a part in the magnificent campaign, which is far from over, to save our shipyards.
For some time, the Department has been perpetrating a cruel hoax not only on the people of Sunderland and the workers in the shipyards but on the commercial interests that seek to buy them. It pretended to solicit bids, when in reality it discouraged bids. I can conclude from his letter of 8 February only that the Minister was unaware of the sixth directive and did not become aware of it until the end of June when he visited Sir Leon Brittan. I do not want to be too hard on the previous Minister of Trade and Industry. All of us acknowledge that he is on the merciful wing of his party and inherited decisions made by others. I recognise his genuine concern for the fate of Sunderland. Perhaps that was what led him to preside over the present mess.
The circumstances of North-East Shipbuilders Limited has implications for the country. As an island nation, we depend on shipping, yet we lack the capacity to build our merchant ships. Once we had the biggest fleet in the world, but now our erstwhile shipping capacity is under foreign flags and crewed from the poorest nations. It has implications for the defence of our country. Only the other day, the Select Committee on Defence drew attention to the shortage of merchant shipping available in time of war.
Above all, it has implications for all those interested in the malign effect of the EC on the British economy. It may come as news to many that the EC cannot merely veto subsidies, but can veto a commercial arrangement that requires no subsidy. This saga illustrates our enormous loss of sovereignty to the EC over the past few years. Many wonder whether Germany or France would tolerate such interference and suspect that, if the market revived soon to allow a German yard to reopen, we would hear no more about the sixth directive.

Mr. Clay: Is my hon. Friend aware that Sir Robert Atkinson wrote to me and said that the French act first and argue afterwards? Does he agree that that is interesting, coming from somebody with direct experience as a former chairman of British Shipbuilders?

Mr. Mullin: We could learn a great deal from the French and Germans. At the end of the day, our problem is not in Europe but in a lack of political will in Whitehall and Westminster.
There is one other aspect of EC policy I should like to draw to the Minister's attention. Renaval is the programme of aid that the EC operates for various regions that have been badly hit by closures of merchant shipbuilding yards. I understand that no application for such aid has been made on behalf of Sunderland, although the Government have applied for aid for Plymouth, Strathclyde and, unbelievably, Gibraltar, which are much less hard hit than Sunderland.
Last week, I and others had a meeting with the Commissioner responsible for regional development, who confirmed that no application had been made and expressed surprise at that. He was confident that if one were made, it would be favourably considered. On 10 July, the leader of Sunderland borough council, Councillor Charles Slater, wrote to the then Chancellor saying:


I would be furious if my officers had neglected such obvious issues as those now confronting you in any negotiations undertaken on the Council's behalf.
He was referring to Renaval. The letter continued:
I assume that you are equally displeased with your officials and that they have been instructed to resolve matters as quickly as possible, and to Sunderland's advantage.
I checked yesterday with the office of the leader of the borough council and, as of yesterday, he had not received a reply to that letter. I hope the Minister will tonight assure the House that an application is under way.

Mr. Clay: The Government have been telling us for months that nobody wants to risk the aid that is going to Sunderland for remedial measures by reopening the shipyards. In other words, Sunderland needs the aid so much that we should be prepared to keep the shipyards closed, rather than risk losing the aid package. At the same time, it seems that the Government are refusing to apply for another aid package, the Renaval aid, which would do just as well as the aid being given for closing the shipyards. That shows the hypocrisy of it all.

Mr. Mullin: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government cannot have it both ways. Given that there has been a massive loss of jobs in Sunderland, it is clear that, if part of the shipbuilding industry there were to be revived, it would not be incompatible to obtain Renaval aid for areas which are not revived. It is time that those responsible got their skates on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North began by saying that we in Sunderland have one of the most modern yards in Europe and that millions of pounds of taxpayers' money had been invested in it. We have a skilled work force, there is a rising world market and the sixth directive—the alibi given for the closure of the yard—is due to be renegotiated in 18 months' time, no doubt taking into account changes in the world market. There is, in addition, a strong possibility—as my hon. Friend discovered on his recent trip to Strasbourg—that the EC is prepared to reconsider the issue.
It would be an act of gross vandalism to destroy those yards now. We want an assurance from the Minister that while any possibility remains—and it seems that a large one remains—of a future for those yards building ships, which is what they were built for, they will be kept intact. At least until the European Parliament has had an opportunity to see if it stands by the claims that have been made for its position on this matter. We in Sunderland do not want to see those yards destroyed if there is any hope of them being retained, and we believe there are considerable grounds for hope in view of the dramatic revival in the world market. We seek an assurance from the Minister to that effect.
A friend of mine who has worked in the yards in Sunderland all his working life told me recently that he had been offered a job in a shipyard in north Germany. He said, "Shipbuilding in Sunderland is not dead. Sunderland workers will still be building ships, but they will be building them in German yards." I cannot think of a sadder epitaph for the Government's policy or for merchant shipbuilding in this country than that they have turned the proud shipyard workers of Sunderland into a race of guest workers in the yards of our competitors. That is a sad state of affairs.

Mr. Doug Henderson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) on initiating this debate, on his excellent contribution and on the role that he has played, in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), in campaigning to retain shipbuilding in the north-east and to retain a merchant shipbuilding capacity in Sunderland. If my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North has shown nothing else today he has shown that when he eventually retires after a long period of service in the House he would make an excellent ombudsman for the National Health Service. No doubt a future Labour Government will bear that in mind.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on his appointment as Minister of State. I hope that he is given a little more leeway by his boss than was given to his predecessor. The fact that he represents a particular town in the midlands may give him the influence that some of his hon. Friends enjoy. He will probably say that it does not, because he has not exactly been bequeathed the most enviable of tasks by his predecessors at the Department of Trade and Industry.
As for the relationship between the Government and the European Commission on trade and industry matters, I am not sure whether we can expect to see the pattern that was established in the past recurring in the future. We have been told this week that there will be no change of policy. I am not sure whether that was the Prime Minister or Bernard Ingham speaking. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing the Cabinet's view of the relationship between the interests of this country and the way in which those interests are dealt with in Europe. The history of the DTI and of British Shipbuilders' involvement in this whole business is one of complacent incompetence.
My hon. Friends have raised several questions and in the short time available to me I shall summarise three or four of their main questions. First, why were the terms of any sale not clarified by the Department after it announced that offers could be considered on 17 January? I have a little experience of negotiations and it has always struck me that the first thing to do when entering a negotiation is to examine the ground rules, consider how they might change and decide what options might be available later. From the evidence that we have heard in the debate about this whole saga, it does not seem as though anything of that nature was undertaken by the Department. Indeed, in the letter sent by the previous Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North on 23 January this year, there was absolutely no acknowledgement or identification of the problems that could arise in the future.
Secondly, after the Commission said that intervention fund money would not be available in response to the issues raised by the Department in April after a bid was received on, I believe, 6 April, why did the Department not then seek to clarify whether any other conditions would apply? We are told that the Department was told that the rules of the game had changed and that intervention fund money would be available, but surely it is a basic tenet of negotiating that one should then seek to clarify whether any other matters would be laid down as the conditions in which aid might apply.
Thirdly, after the previous Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was told by Sir Leon Brittan on 27 June about


the problems which existed in relation to any bid, did any further negotiations take place with the Commission between that date and 13 July, when a further statement was made to the House? If negotiations took place, what was their nature and what conditions were suggested by the Government in response to the talks on 27 June?
I do not want to elaborate too much, but the fourth question that must be answered is why British Shipbuilders did not seek to give the Government advice on the difficulties of interpretation which might arise in regard to the sixth directive. British Shipbuilders has someone permanently based in Brussels who is supposed to keep the industry briefed on a day-to-day basis about the things that happen there. British Shipbuilders must surely have been aware of some of the difficulties which might lie ahead—or if not, why not?
Only two interpretations are possible at this late date. Either the Government welcomed the Commission's veto or they have been given the runaround for the past year and have accepted in a docile fashion an edict by officials in Brussels which would never have been acceptable to the Italians, the Germans or the French. Can anyone imagine an Italian or German shipyard, which had been closed but was given the possibility of reopening, being treated in this manner? Can anyone imagine the German, French or Italian Government giving in to the Commission as the British Government seem to have given in on this issue? Can anyone imagine the Germans or French not clearing the ground early so that they knew the conditions which might apply and could therefore give the issues the widest consideration?
The Minister has a difficult task today. He inherits a grave situation. I ask him to forget the past, to start again, to look to the future and, even at this late stage, to reopen negotiations with Brussels to seek a new package. If he does not do that, he will face another question—what happens to the yards?
If there is no attempt to reopen negotiations, and no satisfactory conclusions to such negotiations, the only conclusion that I and the people of Sunderland can draw is that their yards, their inheritance, their history, their traditions, their skills and their expertise are being thrown to rust and decay in the cold north-east winter winds. I assure the Minister that although I represent a Newcastle constituency, I occasionally visit Roker park. The winds there bite the football ground and they bite the shipyards that are left to decay. Surely it would be better to reopen negotiations and, while they are going on, keep the yards intact in the hope that, with the widely acknowledged upturn in world shipping, there will some day be another option for the people of Sunderland which will allow shipbuilding to take place.
I have this evening asked the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to examine the circumstances in which the Government failed to take the opportunity to dispose of a public asset in a way that would have given hope to a great industrial town and raised public funds. I have also written to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry asking whether he can examine the implications of the closure of North East Shipbuilders Limited for the maintenace of a merchant shipbuilding industry in Britain. That Committee has twice discussed shipbuilding and NESL. Twice it has received submissions

from Ministers and twice, I believe, it has not been told the whole truth. I hope that the Minister will join me and willingly make himself available, with his civil servants, so that the Select Committee can get to the bottom of the matter.
Rather than damning reports from those Committees, which I think very likely, I should much prefer the Minister to re-establish a proper and effective working relationship with his old friend, Sir Leon Brittan, with whom he had a close relationship, and to reopen negotiations in Brussels on this sorry affair.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The future of Sunderland, particularly of North East Shipbuilders, is serious and important.
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) for raising this matter, as it gives me an opportunity to explore some of the relevant considerations. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) for his kind welcome. This is the first time that we have had the great pleasure of debating one against the other.
This is my first venture in the House as Minister with responsibility for industry and enterprise, and I am glad that it should coincide with a debate on the future of industry and enterprise in a town with strong manufacturing traditions and traditions which are deeply rooted in engineering.
I hope that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North will forgive me if I say that I do not accept his criticisms of my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. No one was more anxious than he to bring prosperity to Sunderland, and his commitment to that task was well known. On his behalf, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South for being good enough to pay tribute to him.
At the end of last year, my right hon. Friend had to focus on the future of the shipbuilding yards. His predecessor, the present Secretary of State for Health, had promised that if there was no successful bid for NESL a suitable package of measures would be introduced to allow the town a new future. Bids had been invited by the end of September, and I know that—having examined the advice from British Shipbuilders on those bids—my right hon. Friend was impressed by the advantages of retaining shipbuilding, if that were possible.
A number of factors had to be taken into account, and my right hon. Friend took them into account. Sunderland, as I have said, had a strong tradition in the industry, and there was much inherent skill in the town. However, my right hon. Friend had to be conscious that only bids that were capable of providing a viable future for the industry should be seriously considered. He had also to be conscious—as indeed he was—that, even had such a viable bid been made, there would in all probability have been a substantial fall in employment.
My right hon. Friend also had to consider the positive advantages of creating enterprise zones. He was very conscious of what had been achieved at Consett, Corby, Scunthorpe and elsewhere. That argument was fortified by points made by, for example, my hon. Friends the


Members for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) on the occasion of his statement on 13 July.
I think that the House will acknowledge that my right hon. Friend took immense trouble to find a shipbuilding solution for NESL, and that it was only with the greatest regret and after examining all the relevant factors that he announced, on 7 December, the decision to close the yards. He announced that decision in conjunction with a range of positive measures designed to ameliorate the position that he knew would ensue. Prominent among those measures was the creation of an enterprise zone of some 150 acres for Sunderland.
My right hon. Friend announced a variety of other measures: for example, £10·5 million was to be provided through British Shiphuilders, of which £5 million was designed specifically to help the work force with, for instance, retraining and job replacement, while another £5 million was intended to promote enterprise within the borough of Sunderland. Another element in the package was the provision of advanced factories worth some £7 million through the agency of the English Industrial Estates Corporation.
Both Sunderland Members will acknowledge that the position has improved, contrary to their fears when the closure decision was announced. I understand that, although about 2,000 men were made redundant as a consequence of that decision, 1,100 or so have now found some form of permanent employment. Opposition Members shake their heads. I can only act on advice and no doubt the matter will be further examined. I have given my understanding of the present position.
I should now like to speak about developments between last December and today. The hon. Members for Sunderland, North and for Sunderland, South have understandably focused on these matters. I cannot give a complete account of what occurred, but shall touch on only one or two matters that seem of special interest. In that respect the two hon. Members who represent Sunderland adopted a similar approach. In a debate on 14 December 1988, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy made it clear to the House that it was possible in principle to renotify the Commission with proposals about shipbuilding at NESL.
My right hon. Friend made it crystal clear that he was not willing to put at risk the remedial arrangement that he had already announced for Sunderland, nor was he prepared to put at risk the disposal of the smaller British Shiphuilders facilities. The European Commission decided on 21 December not to raise objection to a package notification for British Shipbuilders which included details of the terms of disposal of some of its smaller facilities together with the corporation's forecasts for 1988 and 1989, proposals for the closure of North East Shipbuilders and the £10·5 million element in the remedial package that I have outlined.
On 22 December the Government notified their intention to introduce the enterprise zone in Sunderland. On 17 January, at a meeting in Sunderland with the "Save our Shipyards" campaign, at which I suspect one or other or both hon. Members for Sunderland were present, the former Chancellor of the Duchy made it clear that he was prepared for the NESL yards to remain in being at least until 30 June to allow for any new interest that could use the existing investment to make proposals to British Shipbuilders.
Against the experience of the previous autumn, shipbuilding proposals seemed unlikely. More likely were proposals for repair and conversion.
The next significant event was that the Commission formally cleared the enterprise zone for Sunderland. I understand that that occurred on 2 March.

Mr. Mullin: In his rundown the Minister seems to have passed 8 February, the date of the letter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North and I referred. Perhaps the Minister will come to that in a moment, but there must be some explanation of the remarkable statement in that letter.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member for Sunderland, South seems to have forgotten the explanation that has been given. He will recall that precisely that question was put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy during his statement on 13 July. If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at column 1151 of Hansard of that date he will see my right hon. Friend's reply. I could not do better than repeat that answer, but as it is already in the Official Report I do not propose to trouble the House further about it.
A first offer was received on 6 April and this was later amended on 17 April to exclude the requirement for intervention fund support. This followed a meeting between Department of Trade and Industry officials and Commission officials about the difficulties likely to be encountered in any renotification of shipbuilding proposals for NESL.
Both the shipbuilding interests which sustained their bids were advised that an offer requiring intervention fund assistance or the equivalent was bound to result in the Commission consulting other member states in a "procedure". They were also warned of potentially serious difficulties even if funding was not required, but prospects could be improved only if bids were without such assistance and there was some lasting reduction in capacity in the yards.
On 3 May, British Shipbuilders received a second serious offer from a shipbuilding interest, which was also confirmed as being without intervention fund support. Both these bids required further clarification and proof. In addition, two non-shipbuilding bids were confirmed on 26 May and 6 June respectively. In these circumstances, and recognising that the Commission could be expected to give a clear opinion only on the basis of a full appreciation of the plans of the two shipbuilding interests, the Government thought it right to take stock of the position as a whole, and to define the framework within which decisions could be taken.
The House will also recall that my right hon. Friend gave a written answer on 7 June this year setting out how the Government intended to proceed. He said that he had asked British Shipbuilders to give advice about each of the bids by 30 June and that the Government would 'take decisions in the light of a number of factors. Among these, the position under the sixth directive was only one. Meanwhile, preparations for the enterprise zone and other remedial measures in Sunderland were put on ice.
Following final clarification meetings between British Shipbuilders and the bidders, which gave him a full picture of what was likely to be proposed, my right hon. Friend visited the responsible Commissioner in Brussels on 27 June. The responsible Commissioner was Sir Leon Brittan, whom I had the privilege to serve as parliamentary private


secretary. He made it plain that if shipbuilding were to be continued at NESL the Commission would feel it necessary to open a procedure under article 93(2) because, in his view, the commitment implied by the Commission's acceptance of the notification of the closure of the yards was a commitment to keep them physically closed for at least five years, and that that commitment would have been called into question. Accordingly, the Commission would need to reopen the package notified last December.
Moreover, aids accepted as restructuring would have to be redefined and any excess repaid. In practice, that would mean an increase in British Shipbuilders' market borrowing, a sum of £90 million the previous December, because otherwise the corporation would have been in breach of the sixth directive.
Secondly, the Commissioner made it plain that in any circumstances he would be bound to recommend a procedure, which would take some six months. Thirdly, the Commissioner also made it plain that, since he regarded the Commission's clearance of the enteprise zone as dependent upon the closure of NESL, the Commission's continued approval of the zone could not be assumed.

Mr. Clay: We understand why the Minister is reading from the statement in the Library. However, he has reached the crux of the matter. We have just heard the two crucial points. What the Minister has read out about the problems of British Shipbuilders' commercial borrowing, he has read out as being the Commission view. According to that, by definition, it would not have been possible to sell off the yards. In other words, the bidders were wasting their time if the Government accepted the Commission's view, because no one could buy the yards.
The second crucial consideration for the Government is the enterprise zone, because they do not want to risk that. Is it not extraordinary that another Commissioner is querying Sir Leon Brittan's judgment, and querying whether the competition Commissioner can link the two matters? Despite that query, the British Government have accepted Sir Leon Brittan's judgment and caved in.

Mr. Hogg: As the hon. Member for Sunderland, North has already made plain, in this regard Sir Leon is the lead Commissioner. We have to form a view as to what is the likely effect of the advice that the lead Commissioner is bound to give to his colleagues. Having regard to the advice that he set out in his letter of 13 July, it is inevitable that if the lead Commissioner gave the advice there set out, it would have the consequences there itemised. Even if that is not a certain consequence to, on any view of the matter it is a highly probable one. That assessment has to be judged against the other benefits that will flow to Sunderland from the establishment of the enterprise zone.
The other issue raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North touches on the effect of the borrowing. It is clear that a substantial debt transferred to an acquiring bidder creates a problem for that bidder. I suspect that it would put the problem too high to say that the transaction thereby became impossible. Clearly, however, such a debt would increase the problem. Were the Government to renotify the shipbuilding proposals for the yard, the future of the Sunderland measures could be

called into question. In any event—perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to reflect upon this—progress would be delayed for at least six months.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I realise that conditions vary in different parts of the country, but it may be of some consolation to the hon. Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullins) if I recall the fact that after the Chatham dockyard closed, with cataclysmic results for the morale of those living in Chatham, two enterprise zones were declared. Chatham now has remarkably low unemployment and a thriving economy with a large number of businesses. I hope that that may be of some consolation to the hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Hogg: That echoes the point that I have made already. My hon. Friend's experience coincides with experience at Consett, Corby and Scunthorpe, where the establishment of enterprise zones has led to a substantial increase in prosperity and employment. I hope that the hon. Members for Sunderland, North and for Sunderland, South will take that message back to their constituents.
When considering the future of Sunderland, the Government must take account of the relatively certain promise of the enterprise zone and the other measures that were announced in December 1988. The current estimate is that at least 3,000 to 4,000 jobs would result from those initiatives. That is one relatively certain proposition on which we must reflect. We must also consider the shipbuilding proposals, which as a result of the attitude adopted by the European Commission are likely to involve delay for at least six months. They would call into question the enterprise zone, and they are likely to result in financial obligations that would make the transaction extremely unattractive.

Mr. Clay: The Minister has still not responded to the central question. If what he has said is true and that is the Government's judgment, that must have been true in January. The enterprise zone would have been in danger then. Against that background, why did the Government allow people to waste their time and money bidding for the shipyards? If the Commission has changed its mind and hardened its attitude, why do not the Government say to it, "We are sorry but you should have told us this before; we have bidders now, so we shall get on with it."?

Mr. Hogg: I understand that intervention to be a reference to the acquisition by the acquiring bidder of the capital debt.

Mr. Clay: And the difficulty of the enterprise zone.

Mr. Hogg: Indeed. Officials had estimated that any redefinition of cost by the Commission within the rules of the directive would be capable of being covered by British Shipbuilders' expected net income over the years to come, provided that there was no intervention fund support and that the Pallion yard remained closed. In other words, they did not accept in their assumptions that there would inevitably be an odd capital obligation of the sort set out in the Commissioner's letter of 13 July. Officials considered the problem of the co-existence of the enterprise zone with some renewed shipbuilding activity, but felt that action of the kind ultimately taken was proper. The criticism of those officials by the hon. Members for Sunderland, North and for Sunderland, South is not warranted.
The Government concluded that in all the circumstances, the enterprise zone and the other measures described were in Sunderland's best long-term interests. My right hon. Friend accordingly invited British Shipbuilders, in consultation with the Tyne and Wear development corporation, to undertake further work with the existing bidders in examining the use of the yard's assets for purposes other than shipbuilding, with a view to making final recommendations in due course.
The establishment of the enterprise zone and all the other elements of the package of measures to promote enterprise and new jobs in Sunderland will press ahead with all possible vigour. My right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), the former Chancellor of the Duchy, devoted considerable energy and personal commitment to finding the best way forward for Sunderland. After careful examination of all the facts, he concluded that the enterprise zone solution was the best. From all the material that I have examined, I see no reason to differ from that view. Advantage must be taken of the measures that the Government have made available.
Sunderland's shipbuilding traditions have been strong, but as well as bringing periods of prosperity, they brought periods of great uncertainty. The means are now available to the Tyne area, through the enterprise zone and other measures, to grow in terms of prosperity and employment. I hope and believe that the energy, skill and determination of the people whom the two hon. Gentlemen represent in their respective constituencies will achieve that highly desirable result.

Orders of the Day — Railways

Mr. Roger King: For six weeks the British public endured the inconvenience of a national rail strike. Tonight, we learned that, at long last, the end is in sight, and the the National Union of Railwaymen has decided to accept the 8·8 per cent. offer that has been on the table for two weeks or more and to resume normal working. We can be grateful for that, but the dispute revealed for all to see the sheer incompetence of British Rail's management and the bone-headed stupidity of the NUR.
The malaise that affects that once great industry is clear to see—a constant struggle between employers and employees to extract the last ounce of concession, with the innocent public left as the victims. The irony of the latest dispute is that the other two rail unions settled earlier for a not unreasonable 8·8 per cent. pay increase, which is the same figure that now has the NUR's agreement.
Rumour has it that Jimmy Knapp, the NUR's general secretary, would have done a deal earlier if his union had allowed him, but that he had a little local difficulty. In making known their view that the union should settle, the Opposition did so in as quiet a voice as possible, lest anyone should hear, and made no impact on the parties involved reaching agreement. No one in the NUR believed the Leader of the Opposition. If they had, a settlement would have been reached sooner.
Meanwhile, British Rail's management procrastinated in a ritualistic way, promising a service on a strikebound day, only to find that the system had to be totally shut down, Yesterday, some semblance of a service was provided, and perhaps that showed the unions involved that they could not continue the dispute with any credibility.
The general public were forced to endure unbelievable discomfort, struggling to and from work stuck in a coagulated traffic jam in record temperatures. Our newspapers have been full of traffic jams on the M25 and the main arterial roads into London, as elsewhere throughout the land in many of our cities.
In essence, apart from a basic pay increase, the NUR's desire to maintain a national wage structure, as opposed to a regional one, can he understood in terms of union influence and power, but hardly at all in terms of common sense. The NUR concedes that it is some 7,000 staff short in the south-east, yet it is not prepared to get round the table and discuss regional pay in order to encourage people to join the railway industry in an area where they are desperately needed.
This nonsense of a dispute need never have arisen in the first place. Talks broke off when one party, the NUR, wanted to go to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and the other wished to use British Rail's tribunal. The result was a complete impasse—absolutely unbelievable. I make no distinction between the behaviour of the management and the behaviour of the unions. Blame can be attached to both in equal measure.
Britain's workers, certainly those employed in the public sector, need what I would describe as a contract of negotiation; a legal document which clearly sets out the negotiating procedure to be adopted by both parties. The failure of those parties to agree to negotiate in the set legal way could lead to court action. It would be incumbent on


the union to ensure that it had fulfilled that legal contract of negotiation before it could conduct a ballot for strike action. Then we could avoid the nonsense whereby, in the final act of arbitration, there is a dispute over which body the parties should go to.
I accept that the NUR viewed British Rail's wage tribunal as unacceptable for the purpose of discussing an alteration in pay structure. It is a tribunal which exists to negotiate pay terms, and its reason for not wishing to go to the tribunal could be understood, since it preferred to go to ACAS, where the method of payment within the railway industry could have been discussed.
For its part, the management may not have made itself too obviously available to negotiate a settlement with ACAS, believing that the tribunal could resolve matters. A legal document such as the contract of negotiation that I have described would have left no grey area for dispute between management or unions. Only in that way can we eliminate the sort of nonsense that we have recently witnessed. Only after that could a strike ballot be legally called.
During the recent one-day stoppages the commuter has either had to stay at home or struggle, often for hours, to his place of work. I can vouch for the fact that roads into London are now becoming jammed with traffic before 6 o'clock. A short five-mile journey into the House of Commons at 6 o'clock can land one in a very long tailback, negotiating difficult junctions.
The Government have exacerbated the problem by providing more parking spaces for cars when it could be argued that we really need fewer parking spaces. We need not extra parking spaces in Hyde park or Battersea park but the removal of existing parking spaces in order to deter a massive influx of cars into the capital which end up in hours and hours of jammed traffic with practically no business being conducted. That would encourage the concept of car sharing.
I hope that we shall not have to experience this annual charade again and that a formula can be found to ensure that we do not. However, having settled on pay, in a few weeks' time we may well witness further disruption if the pay structure that the British Rail Board wants to alter is not agreed with the unions, and we shall be back to one-day stoppages again. We should encourage further steps to keep our cities moving.
The population in general would request the Government to do a little more than they have done over the past six weeks of one-day stoppages. I have already mentioned restrictions on parking places—a perfectly reasonable concept. We should go further, and perhaps, if necessary, issue an order to restrict car usage—when appropriate—to those sporting odd numbers on their number plates one week and those sporting even numbers the next. I know that some people have two cars and could use their odd-numbered car one week and their even-numbered car the next, but they are the exceptions, and such a system would, by the law of averages, reduce traffic considerably. It would free the city's traffic and enable us to combat the effects of an industrial dispute far more successfully than we have over the past six weeks.
Such a policy would place greater emphasis on other public transport systems—buses and coaches in particular. With traffic congestion roughly halved and bus journey

times greatly reduced, it ought to be possible to cater for most people's needs. It must surely be beyond dispute that commuting conditions would improve as a consequence. If we are to stand up to disputes such as this, we must use all the weapons at our disposal to ensure that the life of our cities continues with as little interruption as possible.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to talk to all interested parties, especially the Bus and Coach Council about how best to keep our cities moving in the event of a repetition of the rail strike. I do not think that it helps to cancel bus lanes, only to accommodate more cars—a policy that the Department has tried in the past few weeks. On the contrary—we need more dedicated bus routes, and we should certainly keep the bus lanes open to enable buses and coaches to bring passengers in with as much haste as they possibly can.
The present rail dispute has brought our rail system under the microscope. It was built when there was no alternative and has since been subjected to intense competition, especially from road vehicles. Nevertheless, some say that a new railway age is about to dawn. I would not dispute that. There is much sense in the assertion, but only if we can accept the challenge of new policies.
British Rail has a monopoly. Some of its resources are grossly under-used while others are near saturation point. A monopoly brings with it monopoly union power and the ability to hold everyone to ransom.

Mr. Peter Snape: How original.

Mr. King: Sometimes one needs to state the obvious to emphasise the problems that we face.
We should explore the possibility of breaking up the monopoly. That would need a great deal of courage on the Government's part, but the time is ripe. We can thank Jimmy Knapp, the NUR and the British Railways Board for bringing this item on to the agenda. The dispute has brought into focus the challenge of how to make our railway system more efficient and more answerable to the country.
There are a number of options open to us. Privatising the whole system at one go would solve absolutely nothing, and it could even make matters worse, so that idea can be disposed of very quickly. We should still be left with a monopoly rail system. For many people, rail is the only available mode of transport and for them, the monopoly remains.
Privatising by operating sector has its attractions, and I used to favour it, but it is fatally flawed. One would need a track authority, separate from the operating companies, and that could lead to signalmen and others holding operators to ransom if they wished to do so. There is no indication that they would, but the opportunity would be there for them to do so, very much as air traffic controllers can hold airlines to ransom, as we have seen over the past few months.
I believe that privatising along the lines of the old regional companies—still present under the existing regime but now known as regions—wins on points and has many advantages. As an initial exercise, I would favour the creation of three operating divisions, which would have to be big enough to generate sufficient business that avoids too many complications of cross-regional traffic. The old railway companies suffered problems with the amount of cross-border traffic. That caused problems in accounting as revenues were transferred, sometimes between two,


three or four different regions and the system became horrendously complicated. We have a national railway system at present and it would be extremely difficult to unscramble it back to the system that existed in the days of the railway companies.
If the system is broken up into three companies, one would be based in the west of the United Kingdom and another in the east. Both would contain elements of the Scottish railway system. The third company would be located in the south and south-east, comprising, generally speaking, Network SouthEast. The southern network, because of its essentially radial trackwork, may well lend itself to individual line privatisation. Individual companies used to radiate out of London, and a few years ago the Southend line was considered a candidate for a self-contained private system.
It would not be necessary to privatise all three systems at the same time. One might be privatised initially, with the others following at intervals. The new companies would be free to develop their services as they wished. The social obligations would remain as they are at present, so that they provided the services that people wish them to provide as was the case under the old metropolitan transport authorities.
It may make good sense to convert some of the little-used secondary lines into busways. Experiments to that end have been most successful in other countries. We must remember that railways are particularly expensive to provide.
Before a train has travelled a line, the standing costs are extremely high. In many parts of the country the system is used for only 3 per cent. of the time—it stands idle for the other 97 per cent. The opportunities to simplify the system by converting many of our little-used railway lines into dedicated busways must be considered. The idea has much merit and it has worked in some cities, in particular in Canada.
During the Beeching era, 60 miles of the great central railway from Rugby to High Wycombe were closed. That track was built for high-speed running and the trackway has lain derelict ever since. Much of it has now been built on and it would be far too difficult to reconvert the trackway to transport use. However, it could have been converted to a bus or coach way which would have enabled operators to gain access to central London while avoiding the present heavy traffic. We could weep for the loss of that marvelous asset. The opportunity of using that trackway as an alternative to the railways has probably been lost for ever.
There are many ways in which a railway system can be converted satisfactorily for road use. Not so very long ago in the west midlands we developed a bus system called Trac Line. That was a guided bus which ran along a small narrow track way. It had small wheels on either side of the vehicle for steering. The experiment ran only for about a quarter of a mile and it is no longer in use because it could not be adapted immediately for a city environment. However, there are opportunities to build on that system to provide an alternative transport system to the railways.
Road coach travel in the United Kingdom has proved very successful in providing some competition to the rail system in whatever format we may choose to develop it. We could leave the system in its present state guise in which the dangers of a continuing monopoly will mean that we can expect periodic stoppages and disruptions. We may decide to privatise sectors. That would create

competition and allow railwaymen to participate in their own business; we know from previous privatisation that that has proven to be a very effective spur to the work force to invest in its own business and to produce profits with an expectation of wage increases.
That would provide a great spur for those businesses to respond to customers' needs in the way that only privatisation can. Even in the privatised form that I described, they would not have the necessary competition to provide the extra efficiency that we desperately need. According to newspaper reports, last year about 60,000 passenger trains failed to start. That is a considerable number, but as a percentage it is not very high. I am sure that all hon. Members have experienced great inconvenience through trains being cancelled. Obviously, we deplore that and would wish to introduce a system to reduce the increasing number of trains that do not start on time.
The trouble with road passenger coach operations trying to compete with the railways is that they have great difficulty fighting their way through the traffic of London. That problem would be eased considerably if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would take the concept of bus lanes a stage further and ensure that, instead of operating in rush hours, they were freely available for use by buses and coaches throughout the day. Both those modes of travel are extremely energy-efficient. It is a great shame that we expect them to bash their way through heavy traffic, mixing their paths with those of cars, lorries and so on on the roads.
There are opportunities for route swapping with the railways. Not long ago, British Airways was obliged to give some of its routes to British Midland to provide the internal competition that we desperately wanted. Hon. Members have seen the high quality of service that both airlines provide and, of course, the generation of traffic that greater competition and efficiency have provided for both operators. British Midland and British Airways have done and are doing exceedingly well. If we could dedicate a route for coaches to get into the centre of London with the minimum of disruption, we could provide the sort of competition with which the railways can compete. At the moment there is a complacent take-it-or-leave-it attitude, and we must fight it.
Not so long ago, there was much talk about Marylebone station being converted into a coach station, with access to the city centre via the old central rail system from near High Wycombe. The opportunity now presents itself for that proposal to be re-examined so that we can provide an alternative for the customer—the person who wants to travel from A to B—who, so far, is largely condemned to travel by British Rail. Time and again we have found that privatisation with employee participation spells a better deal for the consumer, but the opportunity to create competition for the railways, in whatever guise they adopt, should not be lost.
I have mentioned that the rail dispute has thrown into perspective the opportunities that the railways must exploit over the next few years to provide the service that the community demands. That service cannot be provided under the present structure, with the intransigence of the trade unions and the poor quality of the management presently operating the railway system.
A privatised system along the lines that I have described would make the various railway companies compete with each other. The railway system has no substantial


competition other than fairly realistic competition from coaches. It will not have a real substantial alternative until we can resolve some of the problems that other modes of travel experience in gaining access to our major cities. If the Minister for Public Transport can offer some hope that he will take on board the initiative of allowing the coach industry a greater opportunity to compete with railways through the maintenance of busways and through the provision of new routes into our city centres, which may utilise existing redundant railway routes, he will be well on the way to providing us with an efficient and highly effective form of public transport.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). I thought that he would talk about railway policy, but I suppose that coming from Northfield and a motor manufacturing area, it was appropriate for him to comment on coaches and roads. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is typical of the new theology, which is so common on the Conservative Benches, especially among newer hon. Members.

Mr. Snape: An old theology.

Mr. Spearing: It may be an old theology, but it is spatchcocked into conditions that do not pertain, as they might have done—I am not sure that they ever did—in the 19th century. It is competition by compulsion, privatisation of public assets and conning the public by asking them to buy what they already own. There is a concern—it may be a proper one—for competition for the railways, but over the past 10 years we all know that long-distance coach travel, with usherettes, television, coffee, deep seats and, above all, the use of the motorways has provided that competition in a way which would hardly have seemed credible a few years ago, even with respect to speed, which is, of course, sometimes above the legal limits.
There is also the denial of the proper role of unions. A Birmingham Member speaking about London problems, I suppose, is just about legitimate, but I remind the hon. Member for Northfield that privatisation of some of the major roads of Birmingham for a few days in a year, which he may have supported, denies those roads to the public of Birmingham—even the motor coaches on which he is so keen.
The public have been sympathetic to the cause of railway workers, because they understand far better than many Conservative Members the difficulties and problems of working on the railways. The railway for a professional railway worker is a dangerous place. The public see them, of course, in their workplace, which is extended over hundreds of miles. Without the necessary training, discipline and experience, the safety of the public is at risk, as we have unhappily seen in the past few years.
Experience, loyalty and morale, all of which are essential to the running of a railway, together with teamwork, do not show on the balance sheet. I put it strongly to Conservative Members that, in their obsession with the annual balance sheet, they lose out on human factors that cannot be bought and sold and will not show even on a capital balance sheet.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Will my hon. Friend accept that chief among the human factors has been the extent to which over the years the railway work force has been undervalued in terms of low pay, and that part of the reason for the Clapham incident, for example, was the enormous amount of overtime that railway workers had been forced to work to make a decent wage?

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend puts it correctly. The southern region has been existing for several years on its drivers doing forced overtime. I made that point in the House at the time of the Clapham disaster. Overtime is forced by management on an unwilling work force because of the Government's edict about such things as efficiency. I do not consider that efficient at all. That is where competition of the worst sort gets us. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Northfield would agree on that. In the 1930s, Conservatives passed Acts on the road coach industry to prevent men and machines from competing each other into the ground. Some new Conservative Members do not understand the mistakes that were made in the past and introduce new schemes without realising the dangers involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) mentioned morale. The railway will run only if the rule book is both kept and ignored. The railway is a family concern, literally and metaphorically, which requires teamwork and loyalty. If management is stupid enough not to recognise loyalty and teamwork as first desiderata, things will go wrong. I agree with the hon. Member for Northfield that higher management has been inefficient, but it has been forced into taking stupid action by Government requirements.
Tonight, an 8·5 per cent. pay increase was provisionally agreed. Presumably the hon. Member for Northfield has not agreed with the action taken so far by the railwaymen, but is it not a fact that if they had not taken such action they would have been accepting a cut in pay? I ask the Minister for Public Transport to reply to that question later. Would he expect people who work shifts and unsocial hours and who are being increasingly ground down by difficult conditions to take a pay cut? I do not believe that he would. Conservative Members have talked so much twaddle over the past few weeks that the anger in my voice is forgivable. Does the hon. Member for Northfield agree that if railwaymen had not taken action they would have been accepting a pay cut?
I spoke earlier of unsocial conditions, morale and loyalty. A feature of the railway system over the past 30 years has been national conciliation and pay bargaining. Conservative Members believe that the labour problem on the railway will be solved by regional pay structures. Local incentives have been available in the Civil Service and public service for various reasons, but workers in the water industry, teachers, doctors or anyone else who is in dispute with this wretched Government——

Mr. Anderson: Or the National and Local Government Officers Association.

Mr. Spearing: Yes, or NALGO. All those people are in dispute not only about pay but about conditions. Labour Members are aware of that only too well, but ignorant Conservative Members know nothing about it. The hon. Member for Northfield may smile, but what counts are the conditions of work—hours, time off, arrangements with the foreman, and so on. Railway drivers on southern


region, who are at the peak of their profession, have begun to resign. Who would believe that people who have climbed the ladder in the railway profession would resign to take up a job in industry because the conditions there are easier and more congenial?
As part of their grand scheme for all industries and trades, the Government are trying to get rid of national pay bargaining. That is a retrograde step. That is why the agreement that has been reached today is only provisional. The bargaining currently going on is about national conditions. If national conditions are removed, workers can be undermined. I hope that this is a civilised society. The Prime Minister talks frequently about the need for the family. Good conditions of work, safety and all the other matters that I mentioned are fundamental.
I commend to Conservative Members the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) at business questions today, when he told us that some of his constituents took home less than £90 a week on which to keep a family. The Prime Minister was present and for once heard the facts. We hear that sometimes she listens and learns. I hope that she learned something during her uncustomarily lengthy stay at business questions today.
Bad industrial relations in the motor industry did not start with public ownership. The problem was endemic. The hon. Member for Northfield may know about this. It is most intriguing and unfortunate that a gentleman from the motor industry has been involved in the recent railways dispute. I do not blame him personally. He is a professional man with a career. He has been the chief arbitration negotiator. The psychological needs of employees and employers in the two industries could not be more different. The history of the one is markedly different from the other. How far has that been at least a contributory factor in the unhappy few weeks that the country has been going through?
I well recall the equivalent gentleman, Mr. Rose, who took part in the discussions on flexible rostering. He was a good man. I believe that that episode helped to hasten his death. He knew that what he was being asked to do was not in line with experience, safety, morale and the family spirit which alone makes the railways operate properly.

Mr. Snape: Hear, hear.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend, who also knew that gentleman, agrees with me.
It is a great pity that this new broom attitude is coming into London Regional Transport. I shall not dwell on the question of safety on the deep tubes, as I have already mentioned it and the Minister wrote to me about it, but he should consider carefully matters on which he has taken a provisional decision. In the past two or three weeks I have been going through King's Cross. On Sunday night an escalator there was screaming blue murder. It sounded as though an animal was being murdered. It has been juddering and screaming like that for at least three weeks. When I inquired about it, I was told, "Oh, yes, we have sent for the engineers, but nothing has been done." I should have thought that King's Cross was the last station at which LRT could keep an escalator running in that condition, but I understand that the escalator service and engineering in LRT is still in difficulties.
The Select Committee on Transport issued a little known report which I have quoted before, but it is worth

quoting again. I refer to HC 44 of the current Session, and the Minister is directly involved. The concluding paragraph reads:
On 12 June the Secretary of State, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, said 'I would have to hear convincing arguments from London Underground Limited before I agreed to pricing people off the Underground.'
Peak hour pricing has been proposed to reduce overcrowding. The paragraph concludes:
We hope that the arguments would have to be more convincing than those presented to us by London Regional Transport on 7 June. We intend to keep the matter under review.
That was the view of an all-party Select Committee after hearing the evidence of Mr. Wilfred Newton, chairman of London Regional Transport.
It is curious to think that LRT is responsible for the planning of all passenger rail traffic in London. That was news to me when I was told it in a written answer by the former Secretary of State for Transport. Statutorily that is correct. There is now no strategic planning in London, but as that issue will be debated later tonight I shall not dwell on it now, save to say that such planning as we have is the summation of borough plans, and LRT is responsible for co-ordinating all passenger transport by rail and bus in London. But LRT is not in a position to do that. The result is that the Minister issues advice—he commissions reports and comes up with advice, and I will cite a few instances of that later.
British Rail and its imaginative management in the early 1980s had plans for transport in London. In November 1980, the then chairman wrote in a book entitled "Cross-London Rail Link":
We are publishing this during difficult economic times For the country. But it is essential to maintain the impetus of forward thinking as part of BR's strategy for changing our services to meet new demands. Moreover, it is necessary that we consider now what sort of railway services the nation will require in the 1990s and at the dawn of the new century because major developments in transport systems and infrastructure involve long lead times.
The management of BR was certainly looking forward at that time. It said that its cross-London rail link scheme would take three years to plan and six years to complete. Had the Government implemented that scheme, we would not have the present overcrowding. But the Government said that they did not want it. They probably said that as it would not pay 7 per cent. it could not be done. That was a narrow, confined, non-public and, in the end, stupid and unsustainable attitude on the part of the Government.
Earlier, Conservative attitudes had been different. The famous Mr. Marples—who had nothing to do with the equally famous lady of that name—had the wisdom to approve the Victoria line, even though it was known that it would lose money. He was a Conservative with a civic attitude to life.
Conservative Members are entitled to believe that today we need enterprise and efficiency and people with dynamism and vision to use private capital to provide services and goods for customers. They do not appreciate, however, that for that strategy to work properly, there must be within society not only abstract but absolute physical provision which is common to all. Without that commonality of service, the activities that people can do best in an enterprise will not flourish and cannot operate on any basis of fundamental consistency and expectation.


Railways—particularly in and around London—come into that type of public service expectation, with efficiency of course.
Instead of that, we have the central London rail study, and the Government say that, in respect of the cross-rail link, they will agree to have it for Paddington to Liverpool street if the developers pay something. As for the east London rail study, the Government say that the developers must pay some money, and the provisional document relating to the east London study, published yesterday, is nothing more than an Olympia and York benefit. Because there has been no real strategic study in London, Olympia and York get partly conned in that they go to the Isle of Dogs and find that the only transport there is the docklands light railway, which is not big enough, and that the only approved road, at least until recently, was one planned in the post-Napoleonic war era and four carts wide. That was planning, up to a point. Olympia and York has now approached the Government saying, "To make it viable and to make east London worthy, let us have an east London rail study." But it is not for east Londoners—it is for the shareholders and brothers who run Olympia and York.
Stratford is an excellent place for a Channel tunnel terminal because it now has cross-rail and may also have the other line to which I have referred. Again, this point shows up the Government's lack of planning for the rail needs of London and the Channel tunnel. British Rail has said that Waterloo will be fine—no doubt with Government backing—and certainly without strategic planning. Although it said that Waterloo is all that is needed, it is now saying that King's Cross is needed as well. However, only four platforms at King's Cross are to be used for international traffic. Even if the six planned platforms were used, one cannot stretch the station and increase its size. There has clearly not been very much planning in that regard. In other words, although the Government are now saying that they need more railway infrastructure and better planning, it is being done on a piecemeal basis.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the new railway for Heathrow is to be privatised. Obviously, it should be part of a through rail system for London, perhaps from Stratford where a new Channel tunnel terminal could go straight through to Heathrow and—if some common sense were shown—loop back to Waterloo.
Those are some of the ways in which the Government are not concerning themselves with proper rail planning. Through their theological obsession, they are requiring an input from developers when everybody in our society knows that we should develop wise long-term planning strategies. For the Government, everything is short term. They will not plan ahead.
I contacted the Department of Transport five or six years ago about a matter in my constituency. I can measure the time by the fact that the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) was then Under-Secretary of State. I begged her to put in some DLR extension earthworks to the new roads in the area, but the Department would not do it. There are now plans for a six-lane motorway in east London over a new bridge, the design of which was announced last week. Five or six years ago I asked that that bridge have the facility for an

extension of the DLR to Thamesmead, but the Department would not even consider the idea. This week there has been a new east London rail study and—lo and behold—it is proposed that a railway will run not far from that very bridge and that it could also include the DLR. The duplication and lack of forethought is almost mind-boggling and cannot be understood. Even the post-war Conservative Government did better under people such as Mr. Marples.
In conclusion, the ideas of the hon. Member for Northfield about privatisation are totally impractical because of his lack of knowledge of the working lives, aspirations and need for good conditions in relation to both efficiency and safety on the part of those who run and those who work on the railways. We must recognise above all the experience that has been collected over the years. The management must use that experience, as well as new ideas, and match the two together. That is what we all want. I only wish that Conservative Members knew a bit more about the technical and human side of running railways. They would then not say the stupid things that they have been saying in the past few weeks.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): In recent months I have learnt a little bit about railways—of course, not as much as my hon. Friend the Minister who, in addition to his sharp mind, has the benefit of an assiduous staff. But nevertheless I have learnt something.
I know that my hon. Friend sometimes grows impatient with me because, as he told a friend of mine, I get things wrong, but I plead in mitigation that too much of my information comes from British Rail; and as we all know, what British Rail tells us on Monday is wrong by Wednesday. In that context, it might interest my hon. Friend to inquire why British Rail has changed the permitted gradients on its proposed high-speed rail line from one in 50 to one in 90.
However, my hon. Friend will be relieved to learn that I do not intend to spend time tonight on the great British Rail project which is tearing my constituency apart and frightening out of their wits the residents of parts of England's most beautiful countryside.
I shall meet the new Secretary of State—I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the former Secretary of State, who I thought was a remarkable Minister in many ways—tomorrow. I shall raise then the many concerns with which my constituents charge me and which I am happy to represent to him.
I propose to apply some of the lessons that I have learnt from this business to a broader argument about the future of the railways in the United Kingdom. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) is sceptical about or sympathetic to the view that I am about to put forward, but I believe that Europe stands on the threshold of an enormous economic and political revolution comparable with the industrial revolution. Just as the latter could not have been achieved without dramatic advances in transportation, nor can the European revolution of 1992.
To those of us who are old enough to remember the Beeching axe, the proposition that Europe's future hangs on its railways sounds bizarre. When the chairmen of Europe's railways met the European Community Transport Commissioner recently, they proposed to build


no fewer than 19,000 miles of track, two thirds of which would be entirely new. That is $100 billion-worth of railway line.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): How many private Bills?

Mr. Rowe: Why? Because they know that, in the richest trading bloc in the world, there will be a myriad of journeys long enough to carry passengers who would otherwise travel by air and to carry freight which would otherwise go by road. The French experience alone has shown that rail is an effective competitor with air over distances from 125 to 600 miles, and is far quicker than road. It is twice as fast as a car and half the price of an aeroplane. On the Paris to sud-est line, 1·2 million passengers, or 56·5 per cent. of the market, have transferred from air to rail, according to the latest count.
Here, all this excitement seems set to pass us by. Not for us the comprehensive planning of a national network that is designed to snatch traffic back from aircraft and lorries. Not for us the prestigious purpose-built stations to welcome visitors to Britain or to speed them into Europe. For us there is to be one hurriedly planned, grudgingly financed, under-protected high-speed line boring its way not to one carefully designed terminus, but two.
British Rail's view of whether two termini or one is a good idea depends on the date and the audience to which the opinion is being delivered. At present, I think that it is believed to be a good idea. I hope that it is, because Waterloo and King's Cross, on present plans, are to provide the welcome of 21st century Britain to hundreds of thousands of European business men and tourists.
Of course, which stations are available will not matter if there are no staff to man them or if the trains break down mechanically. I rejoice for my constituents in the fact that the National Union of Railwaymen has tonight reached agreement, however provisionally, with British Rail. By the time the tunnel opens, we must have a better system of running our railways. That is why I am speaking in this debate. I believe that 21st century Britain cannot play its full part in the railway revolution while it insists on a 19th century view of railway investment.
I understand precisely why the Government, faced in 1979 with a sluggish, nationalised leviathan that swallowed subsidy in preference to earning income by providing services, subjected BR to the discipline of a 7 per cent. return on its capital projects and have tried to reduce its dependence on subsidy. There have been great benefits from that discipline. Management is tighter—although it is sometimes hard to remember—subsidies are lower and customers are beginning to feature in BR's publicity, its thinking and even occasionally in its services. As a result, investment in BR has never been higher, and the Government deserve great credit for that.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that that will not do as a long-term strategy. When lines are closing, passenger demand was declining and journey miles were limited by the English channel, the strategy contained the costs of a dwindling asset, but the situation is now reversed. If conditions are right, railways could become as vital a part of United Kingdom infrastructure as roads or airlines.
So far, British Rail, constrained by rules set by the Government, has been unwilling to invest in the expectation of creating a demand. Instead it confines itself

to investing late to meet a demand that is already there. That is bad enough in a crowded passenger market; in an intensely competitive freight market it is suicidal. It is time that railways and roads in the United Kingdom were treated on equal terms.
Roads, which can use up to four times as much land as railways, are not built and maintained by the owners of the cars and lorries that use they daily; they are paid for out of general taxation. The Treasury may join the motoring organisations in claiming that the road user pays for the roads through road and petroleum tax, but that is a specious argument. If it were sustainable, four times as much would be spent on the roads programme. User taxes in 1987–88 yielded £14,664,000,000, while roads cost £3,578,000,000. The discrepancy shows clearly that road taxes are no more hypothecated than any other tax, and the hidden costs of congestion, pollution and accidents further distort the comparison.
We need to incorporate the railways fully in our strategic transport planning. It is imperative, for example, that instead of wrenching a new railway to follow haphazardly an existing motorway—as is the case with the M20 and the new Kent line—we should be able to plan new roads and railways in tandem. New technology in transport wagons cries out for coherence in route planning; intermodal wagons capable of travelling on both road and rail make it essential that we change our systems.
Let us take freight capacity. British Rail believes that, if it tried very hard, it might capture up to 6·1 million tonnes of freight by 1993. Eurotunnel believes that it should be 7·4 million, and SNCF 7·2 million. For 2003, British Rail looks for 7 million, Eurotunnel for 11·4 million and SCNF for 16·4 million. Those are huge differences. I believe that they are explicable only because British Rail is so demoralised by its present financial constraints that it dare not think big.
Hitherto, freight has always been BR's poor relation. "Oops!" it will say, "here comes a passenger train. Shove the freight into a siding." But 21st century Europe looks for time-sensitive deliveries over thousands of miles, guaranted free of traffic jams and hold-ups. Rail could deliver that, but to build a United Kingdom network capable of complementing its thrusting Euro-network on the back of British Rail's unique system of finance, which effectively rules out any cost-benefit calculations comparable with those used in planning roads, is beyond the scope of both the present management and any management likely to emerge. Let the taxpayer pay for the building and maintenance of the tracks, and let British Rail or private contractors run the services on them.
If we want some lines to be toll lines, that could be even more easily arranged than toll roads. Let proposals for new lines be subject to planning procedures. Nothing could be worse than what we in Kent have had to endure during what have been laughably called the consultation procedures. It is not, I think, because British Rail is malicious—I believe that it wants to consult, but does not know how to—but because it is trying to do too much too quickly.
We have a new Secretary of State for Transport. He has an opportunity and, I believe, a duty to provide Britain with a modern railway system able to stand comparison with the great new systems of Europe, and capable of taking massive burdens of freight and massive congestion off the roads and airways of the United Kingdom and the


continent. If he wants to do that he can, but he cannot do it if he continues to treat the railways as though they were quite different from all other forms of transport.
I do not expect my hon. Friend to make a radical commitment late on the last night of a long hot Session. All that I ask is for him to look with a fresh eye at the whole business of building, financing and running railways, which will still be here long after even his youthful countenance has turned to dust.

Mr. John Bowis: I do not know why my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) was so reluctant to ask the Minister to provide answers on the last night of the Session. It is an ideal time, because the Minister can slip away and escape cross-examination. I have decided to contribute to the debate not least because the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was so scathing—perhaps he was crotchety due to the late hour—in his references to new Conservative Members. I thought that, as the hon. Gentleman had not yet heard any new Conservative Members, perhaps he ought to hear one to enable him to judge whether the views expressed about them are correct.
I welcome the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent was quite right to refer to strikes. Both management and workers in British Rail should be told that the one thing that undermines public confidence is strike action such as we have seen. To those of us who want to see confidence return to British Rail and genuine options to road transport, it is rather dispiriting to see public confidence dissipated by strikes.

Mr. Spearing: In my speech I referred in general terms, while understanding that there are exceptions, to the general theology of capitalism that is being propounded. The hon. Gentleman condemns strikes. Does he disagree with me about people who go on strike to defend their general living standards? If the strikers had accepted the offer would that not have meant a reduction in their income?

Mr. Bowis: Their action affects the living standards of others, and in the case of a public service one must be careful about how one uses the strike weapon. I do not deny people the right to strike, but they must ask themselves what effect it will have on others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) talked about running buses on disused railway tracks. I do not disagree about that, but my hon. Friend must ask himself where the wretched things will park when they get to the inner cities. There are already far too many buses trying to park on the roads, especially in inner London, and we need to take account of that.
The hon. Member for Newham, South also spoke about staffing and negotiations. There was an element of truth in what he said, but one must look at the whole question of attracting people to work on the railways. I pay tribute to the many excellent people who work there and I want to see more. One of the reasons for staff shortages is lack of housing or the inability to pay for it.

I should like to see British Rail management using its imagination to go for equity-sharing schemes which would enable people to live in London and other cities.
I want to support British Rail, but sometimes it does not make it easy. Aside from strikes, the public would be more willing to use our railway service if they were convinced that it was safe, reliable, regular and comfortable and met its timetables with more accuracy. Quite often those requirements are not fulfilled. There is also the matter of safety, but one must be careful about knocking safety on the railways lest one undermine public confidence.
Clapham junction, where the recent accident occurred, is in my constituency. It is the busiest rail junction in the world, but it had never before in living memory sustained an accident in which there were casualties. We must stress the safety record of our railway system time and again so that more people will feel confident about using it. Nevertheless, I still want British Rail to come up with a more comfortable and reliable service. In my part of London, too many trains arrive with too few coaches and they are overfilled. There is no chance of people getting on. If they push, they will probably land back on the platform with bodies on top of them.
Why is British Rail so reluctant to extend platforms? It should bring forward a programme for that so that longer trains could be used in our capital city. That matter has been greatly discussed, but there is still no programme for extending platforms. Why is BR so reluctant to reopen old lines and old stations so that the load can be spread for commuters coming into London? Why has British Rail been so reluctant for so many years to do something about the Waterloo and City line, the 50-year-old Drain? Why does it make life so difficult for those who wish to cycle to the train, put their bike on the train and cycle again at the other end? Unless one travels out of the rush hour, one cannot put one's bike on the train. Why is there not more parking for commuters using stations on the fringes of London, so that they can drive to the station and park? There is not the hunger for passengers that one would like to see.
Why is it that, when we want to encourage freight on to the railway lines, British Rail designs a freight service that sends the freight at a slow speed, on long trains, at night, through the urban areas, disturbing everyone? Why is freight not sent cross-country to its destination? When those of us who want the Channel tunnel to succeed offer alternative proposals, why are they not considered properly? The Stratford option in particular should be studied. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Newham, South about the Stratford option and the route to Heathrow, but my heart sank when he talked about a loop back to Waterloo, as that would undo all that I am trying to achieve. Why do we have to send passengers coming in from the Channel tunnel on a tourist route with a six-mile detour to see Battersea power station on the way to Waterloo? The only reason is that British Rail has a commitment to use existing lines as far as possible.
Why does British Rail not do more about the litter and the graffiti on the trains, so as to make them more attractive? All these whys and wherefores arise out of the frustration of one who wants to support British Rail and to see it winning the battle for passengers, and one who is tired of having to apologise for the service.
I have said to my hon. Friend the Minister before, and I will say it again, that we need an underground link to


Clapham junction, the busiest rail junction in the world, but still not connected to the Underground. I also agree with the hon. Member for Newham, South that my hon. Friend should speak sharply—as severely as he likes—to the chairman of London Regional Transport. We do not want people priced off the Underground system. Nor do we want, as LRT is now describing it, the increase in passengers to be priced off. We want people to be priced on to the system, and we want the money gained from the extra passengers to be ploughed back into the system.

Mr. Peter Snape: When I saw, on the list of the debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill, that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) was introducing a debate on the railway system, I was surprised. As a Member representing a Birmingham constituency, he is known—I suppose that he is quite proud of it—as a motoring Member of Parliament. I thought that at last the penny had dropped, and even he had realised that the private car is not the answer to the nation's transport problems, and that we might hear from him some sensible alternatives. Alas, all that we got from him was the usual collection of clichés. It is typical of the hon. Gentleman that, a couple of days after a reshuffle that, once again, did not bring that much-desired preferment to him and others like him, he is peddling the same old song.
It is to the credit of Conservative Members that, although they are not as brutal as I about telling the hon. Gentleman, they have left him in no doubt that what he said about transport was the usual load of old cobblers. Predictably, he talked about the stupidity of one side of the rail dispute. He attacked the National Union of Railwaymen, my old trade union, but I would not expect anything better of him. He gave a nod towards the stupidity of the management. He gave no signs that he knew any more about the ins and outs of that dispute than he knows about the nation's transport problems.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the massive influx of private cars into our cities every day, and came up with the not particularly novel solution of the use of number plates. Presumably, if one has a car on which the number plate ends with an odd number, one comes in on a Monday, and if it has an even number, on a Tuesday. I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is living up to his reputation of being the motorists' Member. He wants to ensure that we all have two motor cars and that motor car sales are doubled. I do not think that his suggestion will do much to curb congestion in our inner cities.
There are two reasons why motorists drive their motor cars into our cities. First, it is infinitely preferable to drive than to use a congested transport system.

Mr. Portillo: When there are strikes?

Mr. Snape: The Minister will have his turn in a moment. We are aware of his simplistic solutions. As he is still in his place, I suppose that he will have a few more months to peddle the tawdry wares that he has to offer.
The company car rules supreme in the United Kingdom despite the best efforts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As long as the taxation system makes it more attractive for employers to give motor cars to their employees than to pay them properly, it is understandable that employees will continue to drive their cars into our congested cities.

I do not know what restriction on car usage the hon. Member for Northfield would favour other than the magical number plate solution.
The hon. Gentleman's novel solution for railway privatisation would not take us very far. It seems that he wants three operating companies—east, west and south. I do not want to be accused of perpetuating the north-south divide, but the hon. Gentleman seems to think that the north is not worthy of an operating company of its own. Perhaps we should rename his constituency Birmingham East, West or Southfield. The hon. Gentleman's railway operating companies would not provide many opportunities for the north. It is a novel suggestion, but it would not work. Like most of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions, it is ill thought out. I think that we can safely ignore it.
The hon. Member for Northfield talked about buses. I am sure that we all agree that buses can make a great contribution to the provision of commuter traffic in and out of our major cities. They will not make that contribution, however, as long as we have a passion for one-person operated buses. I talk to tourists in London and they ask, "What is the point of catching a bus when it is almost as quick to walk?" If we are serious about congestion, energy-saving measures and public transport generally, we would not be moving down the road, if I may use that pun, of even more OPO buses in London. However, given the balance-sheet mentality of whatever company is supposedly running London's buses these days, that is exactly the road down which we shall move.
Anyone who spends any time in London, whether on foot or driving a car, will know that one of the greatest causes of congestion are OPO buses. Given the balance-sheet mentality, who cares that they are costing society millions of pounds? The millions of pounds do not appear in the company's balance sheet or in those of the various divisions which have given themselves such fancy titles. No solution is offered by OPO buses.
The hon. Member for Northfield spoke about the Trac Line bus in Birmingham. I did not realise that the scheme had won an award. I do know that it disappeared without trace. To say that it sank without trace would be to use a mixed metaphor. The scheme did not appear to offer a satisfactory solution to Birmingham's transport problems and it did not last very long. If the Government were serious about tackling Birmingham's transport problems, they would not be behaving as they are in relation to the cross-city line. The electrification proposal is still being passed backwards and forwards from British Rail to civil servants at the Department of Transport. The nonsensical criteria that have been set to prove the need for the electrification of a busy railway line must be agreed before the Minister even sees the proposal. I am not sure what sort of transport policy the hon. Member for Northfield thinks that is. I am sure that most of us would consider it nonsense.
Perhaps even the hon. Member for Northfield would concede that railway staff are fed up with long years of low wages, long hours and high fares. British Rail's fares are the highest in Europe, and its staff have the lowest morale. Certainly they are the lowest paid in Europe, and they work the longest hours. That is not the kind of record of which even the hon. Member for Northfield, with his one-line—or, all too often, one-word—solutions to the nation's transport problems can be proud.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred, rightly, to the low morale, low pay and


excessive overtime worked on British Rail's southern region. I hope that the Minister will, in the 10 minutes available to him, answer my hon. Friend's question, whether it is reasonable to ask low-paid workers in any industry, but particularly on the railways, given the unsocial hours that they work, to accept a pay cut for the third successive year. That is what British Rail's original offer meant.
Does the Minister accept that, as British Rail's annual report showed, productivity on the railways has increased by 17 per cent. over the past two years? That is much higher than British Rail's percentage pay offers of the last two years, and certainly much higher than the amount put into railway workers' wage pockets, even though negotiations with their union representatives were still in progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South referred to British Rail's industrial relations, and paid tribute to BR's former industrial relations officer, the late Cliff Rose. He had the courage to defend the closed shop at meetings of the Confederation of British Industry, saying that it at least enabled him to ensure that people kept to agreements once they made them. If only that were true of British Rail's present administration.
I do not wish to cast too many personal aspersions on British Rail's management, but perhaps I may refer to its industrial relations director. Even the hon. Member for Northfield might agree that in thinking of the one company from which one would not recruit an industrial relations director, British Leyland would immediately come to mind. Yet that was the source of the executive who is now in charge of British Rail's industrial relations. He is a man who said a couple of years ago, in the hearing of several trade unionists, that the trouble with the railways was that they were too cosy. They are not too cosy now that he has taken over. Cosiness has gone out of the window, together with job satisfaction and morale. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Northfield did not acknowledge that, instead of stringing together a lot of job-hunting clichés.
I pay tribute to the contribution of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). If anyone is entitled to complain about the attitude of British Rail's management, he is. Much of what he said makes sense. We cannot go on expecting the railways, uniquely among transport modes, to produce an 8 per cent. return on every investment proposal that BR's management makes. How can a sensible, modernised national railway system be developed if every piddling little scheme must be supervised by the Minister and his civil servants—who are conspicuous by their absence at 12·48 am? Presumably they are out somewhere, studying a railway scheme to establish whether it will offer an 8 per cent. return on investment. That the hon. Member for Mid-Kent should say what he did about the future of the railways despite the problems that BR management has caused in his part of the country, and in his constituency in particular, is entirely to his credit.
The hon. Member for Mid-Kent spoke of rail freight's contribution to the 1990s and to the next century. Representing as he does a constituency in the south of England, the hon. Gentleman knows that if rail freight's potential is not developed, the alternatives for his

constituency, like others in the so-called garden of England—coming from the north, I do not view it as the garden of England—is not peace and tranquility but a tidal wave of juggernauts. I know that he recognises that.
Without national planning—that is anathema to the Minister, the survivor of the purge in the past week in the Department of Transport—the Minister's clichés about privatisation and railwaymen being on strike will not help the hon. Member for Mid-Kent, his constituents or the south of England once the Channel tunnel opens. Unless we have a national plan and a Government who are determined to get freight back on the railway, the congestion that the hon. Gentleman foresees will come about.
Most of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) was fairly sensible, although I am not sure whether I will enhance his career by saying so. I find most of the contributions that he makes on these matters to be fairly sensible. The hon. Gentleman asked why British Rail does not improve the Drain. That is the one line that the Government want to privatise, even though it is the only line that ran during the strike last week. Schemes to improve the Drain do not meet the Government's 8 per cent. criteria. British Rail will tell him that privately, and that is why it struggles along with 1940s rolling stock on that line.
The hon. Gentleman asked why British Rail does not open new railway lines. The Minister, the boy wonder in the Department of Transport and the lone survivor of the purge of the past few days, demands that market forces shall prevail. The new Secretary of State, whose father, like mine, was a platelayer, will have to come up with some better ideas than his number two, the whizz kid, has.
If the whizz kid prevails, misery will prevail for the constituents of those Conservative Members who have had so many sensible things to say this evening. They are sensible indeed when one considers the contribution of the hon. Member for Northfield—the motorist's friend, the railway's enemy, the ever-ambitious and, I hope, permanent Back Bencher.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is never overly keen to give me my full 10 minutes, in case I prevail over his arguments.
I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of railway matters and Government policy, should be wrong about the Waterloo and City line. In the subsidised railway sector we do not demand that new projects show an 8 per cent. rate of return. We demand that the case for investment should be the most economic, taking into account the alternative of doing nothing. Where there is old rolling stock which is difficult to maintain and unreliable, British Rail could put forward a good case for reinvestment. I am expecting such a proposal to be made shortly for the Waterloo and City line.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) on securing the debate this evening and giving us the opportunity to have this interesting discussion. He began by saying that he thought that there was little difference between the National Union of Railwaymen and the management in the recent dispute. I was sorry to hear him say that, because I thought that there was a difference—that the


management was trying to run a railway service and was content to go through the recognised procedures for settling disputes on the railways, but that the NUR took the matter to strike action none the less, thus bringing the railway into disrepute and inconveniencing thousands of customers.
The tribunal recommended an increase of 8·8 per cent. for clerical and supervisory staff when the Transport Salaried Staffs Association took its dispute to the tribunal. The other unions, including the NUR, refused to do so. British Rail offered 8·8 per cent. not just to clerical and supervisory staff but to all staff. The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and the TSSA accepted that offer. We then had to go through another two days of strike action before hearing now that the NUR is willing to accept that.
During all that period the railway management has been trying to run the railway. It has provided the offer that was recommended by the tribunal. The management has always said that if strike action was called off it would be willing to discuss the other issue, which is the matter of the bargaining machinery. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, his senior colleague as transport spokesman and the Leader of the Opposition all know that for the past 10 days the NUR has put itself in an extraordinary position. The British public has known perfectly well that the NUR has had nothing left to strike about, even given that there was any cause for the strike in the first place.
I will go further and reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield that the record of the British Railways Board over the past five years is a good yardstick by which to judge it, and the industry is in better shape now than ever before. It is carrying more people; it is investing at record levels, and it is requiring 50 per cent. less subsidy than it did five years ago. That is a tribute to the leadership of the board and, granted, it is also a tribute to the men and women who work in the industry. It is very much to the credit of British Rail's chairman, Sir Robert Reid, a career railwayman of outstanding dedication who deserves the recognition not just of the Government but of the whole House for his services to the railway.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield suggested that there should be some form of contract for negotiation in public sector monopolies. Perhaps that matter should be considered. I remind my hon. Friend that procedures have been laid down for settling disputes on the railways and that the NUR chose not to follow them. The NUR did not want to go to arbitration. It claimed that it could not discuss matters in the tribunal, although those matters could have been settled by the Railway Staffs National Tribunal, which is fully able to consider all aspects.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asked whether I advocated that the men should take a pay cut. His remarks imply that people should automatically have pay rises above the rate of inflation—in other words, that there should be no reference to what the industry can afford and to what it can pay without harming its competitive position, and no reference to the effect that a pay rise might have on the number of people the industry can employ, on the rest of the economy or on inflation. I can remember exactly where such thinking led 12 or 13 years ago.
The hon. Member for Newham, South then decided—rather extraordinarily—to launch what was, I take it, an

attack on the non-maintenance of escalators. But as there is also industrial action targeted on the escalators by the engineers who maintain them, I ask the hon. Gentleman to say that he regards the action as wrongly targeted. It puts people to great inconvenience and, theoretically at least, could have implications for safety. It is exactly the sort of industrial action that ought to be condemned.

Mr. Spearing: My response is the same as that of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). Would it not have been sensible, however, if officers at King's Cross and elsewhere had made it clear that defects in the escalators were due to industrial action and not to bad management?

Mr. Portillo: Perhaps so, but I think that the hon. gentleman agrees with me that it is deplorable when industrial action leads to such an important part of the system being unavailable to the public.
The hon. Gentleman then launched several further attacks. He said that there was no planning and proceeded to attack every plan that we have, including the central and east London rail studies. He then attacked the idea that developers should be asked to contribute to the east London rail study, as though it was necessarily better to invest taxpayers' money than to persuade the commercial sector—the profit-making entrepreneurs—to contribute to the line.
The hon. Gentleman then complained that there would be only five platforms at Waterloo and four at King's Cross for the Channel tunnel service, ignoring the fact that the Channel tunnel service consists of no more than two railway lines. It seems to me that a ration of nine platforms to two railway lines is generous, and it is extraordinary for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that if matters were planned carefully, we should end up with more platforms than that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has become a noteworthy contributor to railways debates recently. He criticised the fact that there was no planned network. If I worked in British Rail, I should not be encouraged towards planning a national network by the attitude shown towards the proposals in Kent. Those must have been very discouraging. There are enormous difficulties in this country in trying to build new railway lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent referred to the planned line as miserable and under-protected, but the proposal contains £500 million-worth of environmental protection. My hon. Friend can travel the continent without finding a line with that level of proposed investment for environmental protection.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) should be aware that we are likely to see proposals for investment in the Waterloo and City line in the way that I have described, and there is also a programme of platform lengthening under way with plans for Kent, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent said, desperately needs rail improvements.
Recently there has been an enormous expansion in investment in the railways and the Government have been very pleased to see that happen. However, the success of the railways in future will depend on their reliability and their attractiveness to the public. It is highly regrettable that recently the railways have provided such a very poor advertisement of their reliability to the British public.

Orders of the Day — Latin America

Mr. Calum Macdonald: It is my pleasure to lead this debate about Britain's relations with Latin America, a region with which we have long historic and sentimental ties with which all hon. Members will be familiar. We also have ties of interest involving economic, financial and trading links which to some extent developed around those historical ties. The historic ties give British exporters and traders a head start to develop those ties and links further. The economic links, in purely quantitative terms, are still very small in comparison with our links with other regions and countries, but they can be developed, especially if the debt problem can be resolved. No matter how small the links, the United Kingdom needs every profitable trading partner that it can get in the present economic circumstances.
I wish to refer to two countries in particular which I believe are the most exciting countries in Latin America at the moment—Chile and Nicaragua. The juxtaposition of those two countries may appear strange and even somewhat bizarre but anyone considering the political processes in those countries at the moment, given the troubled pasts which they have had to overcome in recent years—each in their separate ways—cannot fail to be excited at the prospects.
I recently had the pleasure of visiting Chile for the first time and returned full of a greater confidence and hope for that country's future than I could have imagined before my visit. It appears to me that the political process towards democracy in Chile is still proceeding smoothly. I do not think that there is any reason at this stage, given the way in which the Chilean people have organised themselves to reach this point, to be pessimistic about the culmination of that process at the end of this year.
The temporarily troublesome constitutional reforms have been approved. They are not perfect or complete, but they provide a good basis on which to go forward. The opposition parties are united, and that is a key to the further development of democracy in that country. President Pinochet has been increasingly isolated since the referendum, and that is no small contributor to the progress towards democracy. Even the Right-wing elements who have not had to practise genuine politics in the past because they have been able to rely on a dictatorial regime are increasingly working within the system, organising themselves politically, and thinking about how to mobilise their point of view within a democratic framework. If matters proceed as smoothly as they appear to be at present, we can hope that in just a few years people will look back at the period of dictatorship as a horrible aberration in Chilean history which is shameful and embarrassing to the Chilean people.
Great strengths are underpinning progress. One is the relative economic growth of Chile compared with other Latin American countries, which gives a happier context for progress to democracy. I will say another word about the economic context in a short while as it may not be so sound as it might at first appear. Perhaps the greatest strength—much greater than economic forces—is the spirit of the people, who did not cease to demand and cry out for democracy during the dictatorship. Something which was new to me and which struck me quite forcefully in Chile was the history of the technocratic approach

which imbues much of the professional classes, the middle classes to some extent, and the civil servants working within the political system. The technocratic or professional ethos has strong historical roots.
Despite all the acts of oppression for which the dictatorship was responsible during its rule, there was a remarkable absence of petty financial corruption which can reach quite large amounts in Latin American countries. That was most clear in the dying months of the regime when privatisation measures were rushed through before the introduction of democracy and the will of the people again began to be predominant in Chilean society. One might deplore any such measures being rushed through before the new democratic era can begin and before people can express their wishes through the ballot box, but no matter how much one might deplore the privatisation scramble, it does not seem to be marked by obvious corruption of the kind that one might expect in a Latin American country.
That great strength underlies and underpins the progress towards democracy, and it is most clear in the work of the electoral commission. I had the great pleasure of meeting the organiser of the recent referendum, who will also organise the next election. I was left in no doubt about the electoral commission's integrity and ability to conduct a democratic, fair and clean election in Chile, if it is allowed to do so.
Despite those strengths, there are also problems to which I believe that our Government should be paying attention. Some of the problems are internal—for example, the difficulty that a new democratic Government in Chile will face in reconciling the need for stability in the new political framework with the satisfaction of social demands. Unions have been oppressed and hounded to a disgraceful extent, but they will find their voice in the new democratic context and the Chilean Government will have to reconcile that with the need to maintain stability.
There will be the perceived problem concerning those responsible for human rights violations, but here again the distinctive character of Chilean political culture will come to the rescue. To some extent, the Pinochet regime in the past has been able to cover human rights abuses with a veil of legality and thus has exploited respect for the legal process which exists in Chile. It is that very respect for the legal process—that tradition of legality—which will be the undoing of those who were responsible for the abuses in the past as the legal system in Chile takes its course unhindered by those who wish to cover up past abuses.
There will be problems, too, in the new political framework after democracy. There are questions hanging over the readiness of those on the far Right, who have had a clear run for the past decade and a half, to reconcile themselves not just to the outcome of democracy in Chile, but to the full vigour of democracy in Chile.
The biggest problem will be one of economics, which all Latin American countries face. There has been talk of a Chilean miracle. I have already referred to the relative growth in Chile compared with other countries. We should not be led into thinking that somehow Chile has reached the same level of economic take-up as the tiger economies of south-east Asia. That clearly is not the case. Chile is still very much dependent on the world economy. Though it has benefited nationally as an economy in a period of relative world growth, it could just as easily suffer if there is a period of relative stagnation. That is why it is


important for the prospects of democracy in Chile that steps be taken to solve the debt problem which, in common with every other Latin American country, Chile still faces.
The British Government's policy towards Chile in these times should be to encourage the progress that has already been made. They should applaud it, welcome it and discourage utterly any thoughts of regression or backsliding after the election. Unfortunately, however, we do not gain much encouragement from the Government's handling of other matters—for instance, their rapid embrace of China so shortly after the massacre in Tiananmen square. The Government's attitude sends out entirely the wrong message. I hope that the Chilean military, having witnessed the British Government's spineless response to China, will receive a message from this debate that the same will not he tolerated in Chile after the elections.
The biggest problem facing Chile, like all Latin American countries, is its debt problem. It is no use pretending that the solution to the problem will not cost the western economies money. The debt problem is common among Latin American countries. Brazil has perhaps the most severe debt problem, amounting to £110 billion, and in terms of its gross national product is expected to pay back three times as much as Germany after the first world war. That is intolerable and unfair.
Nicaragua, too, has severe economic problems, although its achievements since the revolution have been truly momentous, as anyone who has visited it can attest. Its most notable achievements have been in the social realm, literacy, public health and democratic politics, which are sometimes not appreciated by the Governments here and in Washington. One has only to compare Nicaraguan society with other central American states to realise how open and democratic it is. Some people like to tell stories of newspapers being closed temporarily and of people being imprisoned temporarily, but we must remember that Nicaragua is or has been at war with a foreign invader. When Britain faced a similar military threat in the last war, we locked up our Oswald Mosleys. Such occurrences must be understood, if not always applauded.
The British Government's attitude to Nicaragua has been truly miserable and grudging, and it is a further example of their deplorable overseas aid record. Their grudging attitude was exemplified by the humiliating reception that President Ortega was given at Downing street. Perhaps "humiliating" is too strong—it would be more accurate to say that the reception was intended to be humiliating. The fact that the Nicaraguan revolution had survived the United States' attacks for years and that its president was received by the United States' foremost ally showed that President Ortega and the Nicaraguan people had triumphed.
Travelling in Latin America, one finds that almost everyone of every political shade is disaffected with the British Government's attitude to the region. Whether Right-wing or Left-wing, they all feel that the United Kingdom is throwing away a heritage of good will which could be put to good use. If we listened to our interests and best instincts rather than to Washington, we could develop a policy towards that region which would be more rational and humane.

Mr. Ray Whitney: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on joining us at this late hour to talk about the important subject of foreign affairs in general and Latin America in particular. I hope that it will be a pleasure for him, as it is for us. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on giving us the opportunity for this debate.
This is our second debate on the subject and it is becoming something of an annual fixture. As the chairman of the all-party Latin America committee, I greatly welcome that, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who is its excellent secretary. It gives some of us the opportunity, whatever the hour, once a year to recognise the important historical, cultural, trading and political links which have existed between the United Kingdom and Latin America for two centuries. We all recognise that in recent decades those links have fallen away. We particularly lament the decline in trade and applaud the efforts of the Latin American Trade Advisory Group, Canning house and individual firms. We hope that British industry will come increasingly to understand that Latin America is by no means entirely as the media portray it. Those of us with knowledge of Latin America lament the wholly woeful and misleading image created by the extremely small handful of British journalists who concentrate on the region. I could give several recent examples, but in view of the time and the encouraging number of hon. Members who wish to speak, I shall forbear.
Latin America has serious problems. The hon. Member for Western Isles referred to the debt problem. I hope that the Brady plan, which has been given another impetus recently, will lead to progress, but it will not be easy. The problem is of a different order and character from, for example, the debt problems of sub-Saharan Africa, on which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken such an impressive and encouraging initiative. We cannot take a similar initiative in Latin America because the context is different. We need to collaborate on the debt problem and I hope that the Brady plan will show us the way forward.
We are collaborating on drugs. It is a two-way problem—the supply and demand of a market. We in the western world must recognise our heavy responsibility for creating the demand. If there were no demand in our societies, the problems associated with drug trafficking in the region would be greatly diminished or even removed. We need international co-operation, and I am glad that the Government are showing the way forward.
Sadly, too, we share problems of violence and terrorism. A number of countries in Latin America have struggled, on the whole successfully, to develop and promote democracy against a background of violence unknown to us even in Northern Ireland.
Another area in which increasing collaboration between us and Latin America is important is in respect of ecology and the rain forests. My right hon. Friend who has been elevated to the position of Secretary of State for the Environment pointed the way in his most successful and last overseas visit as Minister for Overseas Development, with his agreement with Brazil making progress in that area.
Those are the problems, but the successes in Latin America should also be recognised, especially the


development and progress of democracy. Argentina has recently had elections and for the first time in 60 years one democratically elected Government handed over to another. In December there will be elections in Chile, and the hon. Member for Western Isles spoke of his impression of the evolution of the democratic process in Chile. There will be elections in Peru in July. President Stroessner has departed the scene in Paraguay. Uruguay has recovered its traditional stability, and even in Mexico the PRI—the Partido Revolucionario Institucional—which has for long in effect been the country's one party is now having to yield and allow alternatives in some of the provinces.
Those are important changes, but the change on which I wish to concentrate is that which is occurring in Argentina, in view of the important effect on this country. Mr. Carlos Menem frightened many people, including many Argentinians, in his election campaign. He is a Peronist and as yet nobody knows what his utterances mean in terms of political reality. Some of his campaign rhetoric, including his talk of shedding blood to recover the Falkland Islands, created the worst fears in many of us who wish to see a stable and prosperous Argentina. As things have turned out so far, however—I accept that only a brief time has elapsed—the prospects look different. He has announced courageous policies to tackle the extraordinarily difficult economic problems that he inherited and has made appointments which have surprised everyone and appear to augur well. Sadly, he suffered the sudden death of Senor Roig, the Finance Minister, only days after he was appointed, but another executive has been appointed who seems determined to carry out the kind of policies of which Conservative Members would approve—policies which have demonstrated their efficacy wherever in the world they have been applied. The prospects in Argentina domestically, against a hugely threatening backdrop, are far more encouraging than one would have dared hope before the change of presidency.
Another area of change which affects us deeply and directly is the apparent change of policy of President Menem, his Foreign Minister and his Government in regard to the Falkland Islands, and I hope that in his reply the Minister will give an idea of the reaction of the British Government to the developments because, as I say, in the election campaign Mr. Menem spoke of recovering the islands, if necessary, "by blood and fire."
Since then the change of tone has been absolute. The Foreign Minister, Domingo Cavallo, has said in an interview:
Our objective is the re-establishment of full relations. The idea is to find a formula so that each side can preserve the rights it has—or believes it has—in the islands. In that way the advantages that are gained from the re-establishment of relations do not prejudice either of the two countries in their rights over the islands.
Other statements in the same vein have been made by the Argentina Foreign Minister and by the Argentine President. Indeed, the President's response to the message of good will from our Prime Minister was also positive. The House will recall that it was in significant contrast to the response of President Alfonsin at the time of his inauguration in December 1983, which verged on the churlish. President Menem has shown a different tone, so the spotlight returns to us and to our response.
We are talking about practical improvements. I accept that the British Government's record is good. They have made a series of forward gestures in opening trade and being easier about visas, but there is now a distinct and new atmosphere which we must seize and of which we must take full advantage. I understand the concerns that such statements cause in the Falkland Islands, but the long-term interests of the islanders can be guaranteed only by a different set of relationships from those obtaining at present. The people of this country will come to expect a positive move forward.
Six months after the 1982 war, I was fortunate enough—if that is the appropriate word—to be invited to a foundry in my constituency where the war memorial to be erected in Port Stanley was being cast. It was to list the names of the 250 of our men who fell in the Falkland Islands conflict. Over that weekend, I had the privilege of meeting about 25 per cent. of the next of kin of those who lost their lives in the war. If there was one sentiment common to all those families—to the widows, the mothers and the fathers to whom I spoke—it was, "I recognise that my son died in a just cause and that he was doing his duty as a member of the regular forces, but I look to you, as politicians, so to change the position that no others need to die in that cause—there must be another way."
I believe that there is such a way, and we must not miss the opportunity that is opening up, although I recognise that we must be cautious. My hon. Friend the Minister's predecessor and the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who usually speaks on Latin America for the Opposition, have produced reactions that were on the cool and even negative side. New thinking is needed.
I close with what used to be a fairly well-known Shakespearian quotation but one which is less heard these days:
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shadows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
This is such a venture. The re-establishment of a sensible relationship with Argentina on the Falkland Islands to preserve the interests of the islanders is an opportunity that we must not lose.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be as brief as I can as this debate can last for only one and a half hours and others wish to speak. Unfortunately, the subject is yet again being debated in the middle of the night, although there is something rather special about debating Latin America before 3 am as it usually comes up at around 5 am. The debate is valuable, if only to demonstrate that one of the problems with British policy towards Latin America is that there is no policy—just a series of decisions which may or may not be made on national or economic issues. There is very little overall strategy.
I do not wish to get involved in the discussion about the Falklands, but I must say that I opposed the Falklands war and I never want there to be another one. I suspect that Conservative Members may one day realise that the fortress Falklands policy, which has so far cost £3·5 billion and will cost us considerably more, maintains only a state


of armed neutrality in the south Atlantic. They know that at some stage there will have to be a move towards real peace, if only to avoid spending such ridiculously large sums of money, which are designed to promote the image of the Prime Minister leading the country to a great national victory when in fact she did not take the opportunities for peace that were open to her at the time.
Destruction of the tropical rain forests, and the pollution that goes with it, is extremely serious because the world requires large areas of forest cover to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, which sustains life. We all know that what happens to the Amazonian rain forest is crucial to the rest of the world. Any encouragement to countries in the Amazon basin to conserve the rain forest and to use it in a sustainable way so that it is a permanent resource for the world rather than something that is pillaged, as is currently happening, is greatly to be welcomed.
I recognise the deep sensitivities involved in other countries lecturing Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Guyana and Suriname on the preservation of the rain forest. President Garcia of Peru asked, cleverly, how it is that western Europe, having destroyed all its own forests, is now lecturing them about conserving theirs. That is a fair point but, like others, he has also considered the economic circumstances which lead to rain forests being destroyed. The Governments and peoples of the countries in the area do not necessarily want to destroy the rain forests—it is simply a matter of economics. We have a great deal to answer for in that respect. Through European money, International Monetary Fund money and particularly World Bank money, much destruction has been financed to provide cheap minerals for multinational capital elsewhere.
There has to be a change of attitude and an understanding of the strong link between the economic policies pursued by the world's financial institutions and damage to the environment in grossly indebted countries. One cannot separate the two. I hope that there will be continuing pressure on the World Bank to adopt even better environmental policies and that support for the protection of the rain forests and the people who live in them will continue. The construction of the trans-Amazonian highway and railway and mining schemes involve the murder of Indian people in their thousands. We must do all that we can to ensure that our policies preserve the rain forest and make it a viable proposition for all time. At present, we are destroying plant and animal species by the hour, and thousands of acres of forest by the day. If this continues, it will be to the cost of all of us.
Only a short time ago the House debated the Antarctic Minerals Bill. Chile and Argentina both have substantial claims in the Antarctic. I hope that they do not ratify the convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities, which will pave the way for the investigation and, I believe, exploitation of minerals in Antarctica. If we are serious about preserving the world's environment, we must look at equally sensitive ecosystems existing in an entirely different climate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) spoke at length about the growth of debt in Latin America. It is indeed frightening that around 1960 Latin America was not an indebted continent but 29 years later it is deep in debt—not because it is intrinsically infertile or over-populated, nor because it cannot produce food or does not contain many able and brilliant people,

but as a result of a world economic system which seeks to take considerable resources out of the continent and to repatriate large profits from multinational capital. As a result, the poorest people in the poorest countries are suffering the effects of debt.
When Peru attempted to limit its debt repayments to no more than 10 per cent. of its gross national product, the world's banking institutions conspired to home in and prevent it from carrying out that policy, insisting that Peru accept IMF conditions which it may or may not negotiate in the future. Exactly the same conditions operate elsewhere—they are always linked with what is euphemistically called economic restructuring, but is in fact our good old friend Tory economic policy writ large, involving cuts in public expenditure, large-scale privatisation of industries and damage to the living standards of the poorest people in some of the poorest countries of the world.
If we are genuinely concerned about those people, we must come up with something better than either the Baker plan or the Brady plan and start talking in terms of improving commodity prices, limiting the repatriation of profits by multinational companies and writing off and rescheduling debt. Otherwise the eternal cycle of debt, poverty, further debt and further poverty will go on and on. The Brady plan is aimed at privatising countries out of debt, but it will not work because it merely transfers political control to those who have pushed that policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles mentioned Chile. Obviously, no one will be happier than I shall when democracy has returned to Chile, when there is genuine freedom of speech, when trade unions can operate openly and freely and the police do not have the power to gun down, tear-gas and arrest people for exercising their democratic rights. I also very much hope to see the end of General Pinochet. We should give the new constitution a cautious welcome, although it is not completely democratic. Inbuilt powers still exist for Pinochet and his successor and for the armed forces, and it cannot be called a democratic constitution according to the European model. We should also remember the thousands who lost their lives following the murder of President Allende in 1973, and those who sought refuge and asylum in other parts of the world. I hope that the nightmare in Chile is ending, but I suspect that in its death throes the military dictatorship will get up to all sorts of awful things in the next few months.
My final point on national matters in Latin America concerns El Salvador. I understand that soon the Government will welcome the ARENA president of El Salvador, President Cristiani, to Britain. I hope that when he arrives the Minister concerned will raise with him the matter of the proposed legislation which is designed to destroy popular movements in El Salvador and covers the military encirclement of trade union offices, the continuing growth of death squads, continuing violence, the disappearance of people who support human rights and democracy and the corruption, if that is the right word, of what remains of the land reform programme in El Salvador. Until there is social justice in El Salvador and in the rest of Latin America, there will never be real peace. I hope that the Government will address those problems when they welcome President Cristiani to this country.
I hope that the Government also recognise that the American approach to El Salvador is causing the problems. America pours in more military aid than it gives


to any other country with the exception of Israel. El Salvador is impoverished, a fifth of its population consists of internal or external refugees, and most of its people live in the worst possible conditions. Yet despite those facts, all the American aid goes to support the country's armed forces. I want to see real peace and democracy in El Salvador, but the realisation of those hopes is not consistent with the amount of military aid being poured in by the United States. Until the social injustices are put right, there will never be real peace in El Salvador.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) for initiating the debate. He and I represented the House in a delegation from the all-party British Latin American group which went to Chile in May. The hon. Gentleman played a significant and fair-minded part in that delegation. I welcome to the Front Bench my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). I know that he will enjoy the traditional warm good will that Latin Americans show to Britain and I wish him all success in his task.
I hope that the debate, which follows the one held last year and which was the first for 38 years on the subject, demonstrates a growing revival of interest by the House in Latin America. Britain was the godmother of Latin American independence and many regard Canning, the Foreign Secretary of the day, as the godfather. Much of the infrastructure of Latin America's economies, its transport and banking systems and industrial heritage were put in place by Britain. We have a long history of co-operation rather than domination in the continent, which provides a good base for strengthening our relationships.
Perhaps the greatest problem in Latin America for us rests in Argentina. The scars of the Falklands crisis are still too vivid to be forgotten, and we are in the absurd situation in which otherwise normal relations between our two countries are in suspense, despite historic ties of blood, commerce and culture which go back more than two centuries. Argentina is again a democracy, and for the first time for many years we have seen one democratically elected president taking over from another.
Despite the many blood curdling aspects of his election campaign, Carlos Menem is showing good signs in the direction of a resolution of the problems which currently underlie relations between our two countries. We should take encouragement from President Menem's statement about the Falklands, in which he said:
Sovereignty is a subject which we, the Argentinians, are never going to renounce—and I do not think the United Kingdom will do so either.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) pointed out, Argentina's new Foreign Minister is already looking at ways in which a dialogue can be opened up rapidly between our two countries. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will take full advantage of that window of opportunity to open up talks and achieve a normalisation of diplomatic, commercial and cultural relations.
When Latin Americans talk of Britain, they say that one of the principal contributions that we have made to the world is that of democratic institutions. They hold this place in the highest regard. Over the past few years, almost

all the republics of Latin America have returned to democracy, some from subjugation by exceptionally brutal military regimes. Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and others are struggling to foster responsible representative democracy against the background of horrendous economic difficulties.
One of the principal problems lies with the restoration of effective democratic parties following the destruction wreaked by military dictatorship. That is particularly true of Chile, where the Right-wing parties have suffered notably more than those of the Left. I wonder whether we, as representatives of the "mother of party democracy", are applying sufficient resources in this area in which we have such an impressive wealth of practical experience to contribute.
Many countries in the region deserve congratulation on their transition to democracy. The latest example has been Chile, which has astonished the world with its smooth process through constitutional referenda towards the presidential and congressional elections due to be held in December. Despite the reservations that we may have about their brutal record on human rights, President Pinochet and his regime deserve recognition for the determined way in which they have led the country back to democracy. Perhaps the greatest endowment that they will bestow on the restored democracy will be the relatively most healthy economy in Latin America. The test of that democracy will be whether its new policies can be compatible with continuing and growing economic prosperity. Argentina under Raul Alfonsin is a bitter warning to Latin American democrats of the penalties for irresponsible policies and failure to take the necessary decisions.
A number of Latin American countries have still to return to democracy. Nicaragua last voted in 1984, in elections which were delayed and then staged under conditions so open to poll rigging that the main opposition alliance boycotted them. The Government of Nicaragua are committed to elections next February, and the opposition have agreed to contest them, but will the Sandinistas, with their record of repression, political prisoners and censorship, give a fair wind to the elections? What democratic guarantees will be on offer? Independent oversight of the poll and the freedoms of campaigning and the press must be upheld.
We all know what happened as a result of the May election in Panama. Haiti has reverted to yet another military dictatorship. Paraguay has recently returned to democracy, but we must never forget that the recent election there was held under Stroessner's distorted electoral law and voters list. Nor should we forget that President Rodriguez was a close associate of his dictatorial predecessor. We must make it clear that we continue to have considerable reservations about all those countries.
A growing interest in Latin America is centred around the real threat to the rain forest in the Brazilian and Peruvian Amazonia. We have a major part to play in view of our technical expertise, which is particularly manifested in the Oxford Forestry Institute and at Kew. Experts in tropical rain forests, such as John Hemmings and Ghillean Prance, have much to offer to enable an economically viable but ecologically preserved Amazonia to prosper. This is why we must welcome the recent agreement concluded with Brazil by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), which brings much of this expertise to bear in co-operation with the Brazilians. It is


the first agreement of its sort and contrasts well with the rhetoric emanating from the United States and elsewhere which so inflames the Brazilian public and political opinion.
We should speak out also against the international desecrators of the rain forest. We rightly take an interest in British companies which perhaps inadvertently have Brazilian subsidiaries and affiliates which commit environmental excesses, and we should speak out against destructive exploiters of the rain forest. I think in particular of the Japanese exploiters of hardwood, who have already wreaked havoc in Burma and Borneo and are reported to be planning the rape of the Brazilian state of Acre along a transport route through Peru.
British trade with South America has had a sad record in recent decades. Even now, our share of Latin American imports has risen to only 3 per cent. I note the significant increase in British trade missions in recent years and the increasing number of Ministers making visits, but one visitor who would make a major impact is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Government's great successes in transforming the British economy, vastly increasing productivity and pioneering privatisation have excited the interest of Latin Americans. A visit by the architect of that transformation would focus interest on the potential for business with Britain. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will note that and consider enticing my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with the prospect of a visit to São Paulo, Brasilia and Rio de Janeiro, to Colombia and Venezuela, and to Chile after the restoration of democracy.
We also need visits by many more business men to the region to foster British exports and investment. The great Latin American cities provide sophistication and comfort to rival any in Europe. It is not a discomfort prospect. Business men will need to gain a knowledge of the languages, which are Spanish and Portuguese, and although it is not the subject of the debate, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will emphasise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science the importance of those languages. Spanish, after all, is the most spoken international language after English.
The debate has necessarily been short. We spend little enough time in the House on foreign affairs, and most of that is on European affairs with a little on the Commonwealth, but we must never forget our friends in Latin America and the outstanding potential of a region whose GDP is greater than that of Africa, the Indian subcontinent and south-east Asia put together. The opportunities for us are immense if we do not neglect that continent.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: I shall start by sketching a little history of Latin America. If time had permitted, I should have gone back to the Incas and perhaps even earlier. Unfortunately, time does not permit, so I will go back only about 200 years to the period when the great liberator, Simon Bolivar, was hard at work getting rid of the Spanish yoke. There was Bolivar in the north and San Martin in the south, and we should not forget the help that the British Government of the day gave those two liberators. It should not be forgotten that British troops fought beside the liberator. Nor should we forget the reverence in which Bolivar is still held. I

remember well crossing a square in Caracas where there was a splendid equestrian statue of the liberator. A man was on duty, and if people attempted to carry parcels past the statue or to sit on the steps around its base, the man would advance blowing a whistle to drive them away. Could we find such an example of reverence for a great national figure of the past?
We have heard a great deal about Argentina. I have reservations about President Menem because I have strong reservations about Peronism, which seems to be rather an unpleasant creed. None the less, we must wish him well and every success with his beautiful country, which has the potential to be one of the most prosperous in the world. Let us hope that he gets it right.
I continue to skate northwards very rapidly, to Nicaragua. It is my belief that the United States Government got it wrong, and that the Somoza regime was particularly unpleasant and should not have been bolstered and kept going. America should have taken the longer-term view by getting rid of Somoza and encouraging Nicaragua to take the road to prosperity rather than repression.
Other hon. Members have touched on the Falklands. I have just received the latest issue of the Falkland Islands Newsletter, which mentions Peronism and the fact that it directs that
Argentine school children be taught from infancy that `The Malvinas' are theirs by right so that they actually believe it.
That is not the way forward. Good will is needed on both sides, not that sort of propaganda.
I spoke briefly of Britain's historical contacts with Latin America. Even to this day, the English are much liked in south America.

Mr. Corbyn: So are the British.

Mr. Summerson: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely correct, particularly bearing in mind that Admiral Cochrane was a Scot.
To this day, the British are well liked in south America. Twelve years ago, I spent six months travelling around south America, and as soon as the local people discovered that I was not "Americano" or "Yankee" but "Inglese", their attitude changed. There is a great fund of good will for the British in south America, and we should not throw it away but develop it.

Mr. Donald Anderson: By leave of the House, even at this late hour I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on securing the debate, and welcome the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box as Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
As other hon. Members have observed, Latin America is increasingly at the margin of British interest. The total value of our exports to Latin America in 1987 was less than that of those to Norway. In the past 30 years, Britain's share of Latin American imports has fallen by two thirds, and that country's share of British imports by four fifths. Britain makes a relatively insignificant contribution in terms of services to Latin America, whose total share of British aid is less than 3 per cent.
To most British people, Latin America is an unknown continent with a negative image of debt, rain forest


destruction, poverty, drugs and dictatorship, but in the past decade there have been extensive moves to democracy in Latin America. One thinks of Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and Argentina—and this year we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the overthrow of the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, to which the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) properly referred.
Elected Governments in those countries are increasingly under pressure as democracy, sadly, fails to deliver in economic terms. A regrettable feature of centre Governments is that they are increasingly losing out to the extreme Left or extreme Right—and the end of that road may be a a return to military dictatorships, as people yearn for the stability offered by military Governments of the past.
We must constantly remind ourselves that democracy is not just a matter of constitutional structures but of human and social rights. A democracy that cannot deliver is a shaky democracy. In particular, one now sees problems in Peru, Brazil, Ecuador and Argentina.
The debt problem has been mentioned. The net outflow of resources from Latin America last year was in excess of $28·9 billion and the flow of investment to Latin America was only $4·3 billion. There are no clear signs of growth and inflation is high. One asks whether democracy can find an easy route in such circumstances.
What role can Britain usefully play, given the decline in our influence and commitment to Latin America? The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), who has an extensive knowledge of the region, bewailed the few British journalists in the area. He might also have mentioned the decline in language studies, other than French, in Britain.
Save for the peculiar bilateral difficulties of the Falklands and Argentina, our policy towards Latin America will increasingly be seen in a European context, particularly because of the important historic and cultural links between the Iberian countries. I do not suggest that there should be an exclusive relationship, but that special relationship in the past will have to be addressed.
What, then, are the specific and general areas of impact on the United Kingdom which are worth recording? The debt problem was much stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). The foreign currency spent on servicing debt clearly reduces growth and the possibility of imports from the First world. Short-term emergency packages are insufficient. As the hon. Member for Wycombe stressed, the Baker plan did not work, but the Brady plan for debt reduction at least has some greater hope of working. Are the British Government planning any initiative to reach a lasting settlement? I see that not in the context of bailing out those banks—particularly the American banks, but not exclusively so—which in the 1960s and 1970s saw it as their job to lend. Certainly the structure and composition of the debt is different from the public debt which applies in Africa south of the Sahara.
The drugs problem has also been mentioned by several hon. Members. It is significant that 40 per cent. of the cocaine seized in Europe last year came from Colombia and 20 per cent. from Ecuador. What co-operation are the Government receiving from Latin American countries on the drugs problem and to what extent are the Government prepared to assist in measures such as crop substitution?
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North mentioned the destruction of the rain forests. The Opposition welcome the initiatives of the Secretary of State for the Environment in his previous incarnation as Minister for Overseas Development and we hope that he will carry that same commitment to his wider responsibilities in his new Department. In particular, we note his pressure on British companies which operate in the area, such as Shell in Brazil, following allegations of their supplying fuel to mineral prospectors in Bua Vista in the north of Brazil and elsewhere.
It is in human rights that the Government have had the greatest failure in the past decade, in particular in their non-intervention when so many Latin American Governments tolerated death squads and vigilantes who co-operated with the security forces. I recall that in 1983, in the port of Valparaiso in Chile, on the 11th anniversary of the bombing of the Moneda palace the British ambassador was handing over a warship to the Chileans, while, in contrast, the French ambassador had completely immersed himself in human rights problems, co-operating with others. Britain had resumed diplomatic relations with Chile ostensibly to make representations on human rights after the torture and maltreatment of Dr. Sheila Cassidy and the death of William Beausire, a British subject, but despite the purported reasons for establishing diplomatic relations it was clear that trade was the main motive.

Mr. Corbyn: And military co-operation.

Mr. Anderson: And military co-operation, as my hon. Friend says. To add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles has already said about Chile, we rejoice that Chile now seems firmly on the road to democracy, although that is no thanks to the British Government who seemed happy and at home with dictators.
The hon. Member for Wycombe referred to the Falklands and Argentina. Clearly, circumstances have changed since the election of President Menem, who has given many signals that he wishes to enter into a dialogue with Britain. In that regard, may I ask the Minister whether it is true that the Argentine Government have offered to meet the British Government in Brasilia—as Brazil acts as agent on our behalf—and, if so, what has been the response?
After the war we had established the principle of no change by military intervention and held, and could have acted from, the high ground. Unfortunately, there has been a substantial slippage since then because of the failure of both Governments to respond to the situation. It is wrong that countries which have had such a long history of friendship should fail to move, but at least the way now seems open for some positive development. As the hon. Member for Wycombe will know, a high-powered delegation of congressmen from Argentina will be here for the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in September, which may afford an opportunity for discussions.
Back in Chile, the dark night of Pinochet is almost over. The consensus agreement on constitutional changes agreed between the Chilean Government and Opposition last month suggests that progress towards democracy is now almost unstoppable. I hope that the British Government will help in the process, as the elections promise to be fair and there is every expectation of an Opposition victory. I hope that the British Government


will in no way welcome Pinochet to this country in view of his background and in particular his treatment of British subjects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North mentioned our major concerns about El Salvador. Our real concern is that the Government will seek to encourage ARENA and make it respectable. Clearly, the United States was mightily embarrassed by the rigged elections in Salvador. By their past attitudes and by the death squads, those in ARENA have proved themselves to be a bunch of murderers, although it is fair to say that President Cristiani has been the respectable face of a very unrespectable group. Is it true that the Government propose to invite President Cristiani to visit Britain in the autumn, and if the visit goes ahead, will he be accompanied by Mr. d'Aubuisson? It would be a disgraceful blot on the British record if d'Aubuisson, who is the real power behind the throne, were welcome at either No. 10 or the Palace, or both.
The Government now appear to be seeking in every way to make ARENA, which has always been linked with the death squads, acceptable. They should surely draw the line at welcoming d'Aubuisson, who a previous American ambassador described as "a pathological killer". Are we making representations to El Salvador about the increasing human rights abuses and the newly published programme for changes in the penal law mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North?
Nicaragua has been perhaps the greatest victim of Thatcherite ideology over the years. Is it not now time, after 10 years of blockade and isolation, to help restore peace and to rebuild Nicaragua's shattered economy and resume direct British aid to that country?
Sadly, to a large extent Latin America is marginalised in comparison with the grand role that our people played in the area in the last century. If that role is currently marginal, it is potentially very important. I have referred to the impact of debt and drugs. I hope that our foreign policy towards the region as a whole will be less ideological in future and more oriented towards human rights and development. I hope that it is less based on the Reagan-Thatcher axis which has done so much harm to the area's development potential and particularly to that of central America. The time is now set for the tone of our policy to change in response to the signals from that continent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The Foreign Office is not noted as a Department that frequently brings legislation before the House. It can fairly be said that it is not a Department whose responsibilities frequently feature as subjects for debate. Therefore, I am more than somewhat surprised to find that before my second day—or more accurately, my third night—in my new post, I have not only taken a Bill through all its stages in the House, but I find myself replying to a debate. I welcome these opportunities. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) for the kind welcome that they extended to me on my new responsibility——

Mr. Anderson: In spite of the hour.

Mr. Corbyn: Or because of it.

Mr. Sainsbury: Despite of or because of, I am not choosy. When my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham initiated a debate on our relations with Latin America this time last year—almost to the day—he remarked that it was the first time for 38 years that the House had debated the subject. I am certainly pleased that we have returned to it after a briefer interval on this occasion, although the hour is rather similar. In view of my relatively short time in post, I hope that the House will understand if I necessarily speak with some diffidence on the subject.
However, I can confirm that a lot has changed since last year's debate, much of that change being for the better. Last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), in her previous position as the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, spoke of the continent's return to democracy. That welcome trend has continued and has gathered momentum. A series of presidential elections is in prospect in the region. It is easy to forget that 10 years ago most Latin American countries were dictatorships while most are now democracies. Even in those countries in which democracy is not yet fully established, notably Chile, there have been clear moves in the right direction. I know that the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) recently visited Chile and I welcomed what he said as a result of the impressions that he gathered during his visit.
Our relationships with the region are full of potential, as many hon. Members have said, but they have also moved forward. When he addressed Canning house in December last year, referring to relations with Latin America my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, the then Foreign Secretary, said:
now we can say, without any fear of contradiction, that the period of neglect is over.
Events since have borne him out. Quietly but continuously we have developed our relations with the region. British investment, always a major component of that relationship, has continued at high levels. We are a significant investor in Brazil. In 1988, investment flows from the United Kingdom made us the second largest foreign investor that year both in Venezuela and in Colombia. The region remains an important trading partner for us, even if, as hon. Members have said, our share of the market remains far lower than it should be.
The degree of interest shown by the United Kingdom companies that attended the Foreign and Commonwealth Office-organised seminar on trade and investment in Latin America last May heartened all of us. More than ever, our message to the United Kingdom companies that have not yet discovered Latin America is to go and look. The opportunities are there, as has been stressed in the debate, and United Kingdom companies trading in Latin America are doing well. The Foreign Office, the Department of Trade and Industry in London and our posts abroad stand ready to offer every assistance to those that do go and look. I accept that we could and should do better, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe has said.
In other matters, too, our relationship has thickened. Hon. Members will be aware of the recent very successful visit to Brazil by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Our co-operation with Latin American countries to combat the worldwide scourges of narcotics and terrorism has continued and intensified. I shall say more on those themes in a moment.
Not surprisingly, Chile has frequently featured in this debate. The hon. Member for Western Isles referred to it as one of the most exciting countries in the region. I note the concerns that have been expressed, but Chile has a long history of democracy, and the British Government want to see that status fully restored. We have been encouraged by the progress that is now being made to that end and by the great sense of responsibility being demonstrated on all sides during this important political transition, and we wish it well. We will continue to give every encouragement to all those in Chile who aspire to democracy. Together with our partners in the Twelve, we look forward to working with a democratically elected Government, expected to assume office in March next year, following the general and presidential elections to be held in December this year.
The success of the Chilean economy in recent years has been particularly notable. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham referred to that. It is certainly true that there has been sustained growth since 1983 of over 5 per cent. per year, substantial debt reduction, and an impressive diversification of exports. All the major political parties and presidential candidates are pledged not to alter the basic economic framework put in place by the present Chilean Government. Candidates' differing ideas on the social policy that a democratic Government should follow will be put to the vote in December, and it will be for the Chilean people themselves to decide. There will be plenty of scope for economic co-operation by Britain with the new Government when they are in place. The unified European Community market in 1992 will offer plenty of opportunities for trade which we would expect not only Chile but other Latin American countries to grasp.
Let me now say a word about human rights in Chile, which have been referred to rather too often, one might think. Sadly, they continue to be abused in many parts of the world. Unfortunately, Latin America is no exception. The British Government's views on this matter are very clear, and we make no bones about putting our views squarely to the Governments concerned, including the Chilean Government, which we do frequently, as we do to the Colombian Government about the different problems in that country. We and our European Community partners have frequently made it plain that we are concerned about continuing abuses, not only in Chile, but wherever they occur, and we are not afraid to take a clear public stand, including in the United Nations. [Interruption.] I emphasise to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that we must also be ready to recognise real improvements. By doing that, we encourage the further improvements that we all want to see.
I shall now cross the Andes to Argentina, which has also been mentioned by most of the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate.
Hon. Members will have seen reports in the press of "a new approach" by the new Argentine Government on the Falklands. We have been struck by the new tone of official Argentine statements since the inauguration of President Menem. We certainly welcome the constitutional transfer of power through elections, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe rightly pointed out was for the first time in 60 years. We wish that new Government well. The

full nature of the Argentine position is not yet clear. There have been numerous statements, not all entirely consistent with each other. But their approach seems designed to restore a more normal relationship with us, while putting the difficult issue of sovereignty on one side, which we welcome.
We have consistently expressed our willingness to work for more normal relations by making progress on practical issues of potential benefit to both sides. I have in mind the removal of trade and financial restrictions and the restoration of air links and the establishment of contacts on fisheries, where we have important common interests in the conservation of fish stocks.
I hope that we can look forward to a period of tangible achievement in our relations with Argentina. That is certainly our aim, and I hope that it is shared by the new Argentine Government.
A number of hon. Members have asked about the reports of contacts with Argentina. I hope that they will understand that this is a very delicate matter and that they will not expect me to go into details at this stage. I cannot comment on the press reports, but hon. Members may rest assured that we will respond positively to any proposals, consistent with our commitment to the Falkland Islands.
The debt problem has been generally recognised as very worrying, but, of course, it is not all gloom. On a more positive note, after lengthy negotiations, Mexico has reached an agreement with its commercial creditors, which we warmly welcome. We hope that that will make a major contribution to economic recovery in Mexico and to the successful implementation of the Brady plan.
The Government are very concerned about the difficulties faced by many Latin American countries as a result of their heavy debt burdens, but it is important to remember that the majority of Latin America's debt is owed to the commercial banks, and arrangements for dealing with that debt must be primarily a matter for debtors and banks to negotiate between them.
However, in Latin America, creditor Governments have made a substantial contribution towards debtors' external financing needs. That has been through both new lending from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and by rescheduling official debt in the Paris club, where countries are prepared to undertake the often difficult task of economic reform.
Furthermore, the Government appreciate the importance of commercial debt reduction, and recognise that international financial institutions can play a useful facilitating role. We support the strengthened debt strategy for the highly indebted middle-income countries, known as the Brady plan. We endorsed it at the economic summit in Paris.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham and the hon. Member for Islington, North raised the important matter of the rain forests and the environment. That has been fully debated twice this year in the House, but I recognise that there is an extraordinary degree of public interest in the issue at the moment. I mentioned earlier the successful trip to Brazil by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in his previous post as Minister for Overseas Development. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that as a concrete demonstration of the importance with which we view environmental problems in the region and of our interest in doing something effective to help. Perhaps less prominent have been the continuing difficulties of urban pollution in Latin


American cities, which my right hon. Friend also looked at during his visit. Not surprisingly, there is great sensitivity in certain Latin American countries at anything that smacks of foreign interference in those affairs. My right hon. Friend said during his visit, and I repeat here, that
there is no intention whatsoever of interfering in sovereignty",
Brazilian or other. We wish to help Latin American Governments to tackle those very difficult problems, and are glad to be able to put at their disposal our considerable expertise in the forestry sector. My right hon. Friend signed a memorandum of understanding with the Brazilian Government during his visit, opening the way to just that sort of sensible, practical co-operation. Overseas Development Administration officials are now looking at specific ways in which we can help. We are in no doubt that this is a much more responsible approach to important issues than any calls for pressure to be put on Latin American Governments.
Hon. Members mentioned the important subject of drugs. The hon. Member for Swansea, East asked about the co-operation that we receive. We have developed increasingly effective programmes of co-operation with Governments in the common struggle against drugs, including direct links between our police forces and Customs services. For obvious reasons, I would prefer not to give details of those links. We have provided radio equipment to police forces in several countries. At present we are negotiating anti-drugs agreements with Mexico, and my predecessor signed one in Brazil last November. We plan to host a conference on this most important subject next year.
All hon. Members who contributed to the excellent debate mentioned the difficulties that Latin America faces. No one is more aware of those difficulties than the Government. We know that there is much work to be done in solving the problem of the region's external debt, and that democracy requires consolidation. It would be wrong to look only at the darker side of the region as a whole or our relations with Latin America.
Latin America is almost unique in the world outside Europe in its widespread return to democracy, and its attachment to western values. I am hopeful that the region's economic difficulties will prove temporary. I have often heard that nobody who has been there can fail to be impressed by the region's potential and by the capabilities of its people. I am new to this job, but I am much looking forward to seeing for myself before too long the problems and opportunities that we have been discussing tonight.
We mean it when we say that we value our relations with Latin America. Over past years, particularly over the past 12 months, we have established a particular momentum in those relations. We intend to continue to expand and to strengthen our links with a continent so close to our own in its culture and history.

Orders of the Day — Green Field Sites (Development)

Mr. Mark Wolfson: However late and grey the hour, I welcome the opportunity to debate the continuing development on green field sites around towns and cities. In so doing, I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his expanded duties in the planning sector. He will need all his skills as a steersman, boxer and umpire in this arena, to which he is no stranger, and I wish him -well. I am pleased and relieved to see that other hon. Members have stayed the course and are present to debate this important subject, late though it is.
The issue is of vital concern to people all over Britain, but it is particularly acute in the south of England. A dominant London, a vigorous economy, rapidly developing job opportunities, attractive countryside and even a relatively benign climate combine to create an insatiable demand for new homes and other development in the countryside. That phenomenon is not new. Victorian and Edwardian suburbs bear witness to past demand. Ribbon development in the 1930s and the growth of boroughs such as Enfield, Bromley, Harrow and Woodford, and similar developments on the edge of other cities, show the strength of demand for homes built on green field sites in the years between the wars. They are a clear warning, as are many post-war developments, of how much acreage can be built on in one, two or three decades.
Our framework of planning law was established to balance the demand for more and better housing in an attractive environment with the need to preserve the countryside from the character of towns. Despite this framework, however, a frightening amount of green field land is still built on every year. As Mark Twain reminded us long ago, there is not an unlimited supply of i his commodity. He was speaking of America. In Britain it is even more clearly the case. Many hon. Members from a multiplicity of constituencies are worried by that, but we are not blind to the need for new and better housing, nor to the desire of families for an improved environment.
The debate is about two issues—how to limit the pace of green field development and at the same time finding other land for housing. With many of my colleagues, I contend that great opportunities still exist to use derelict and underused land within and on the edge of many of our towns and cities as land for housing and other developments. Far too many people are still condemned to live as neighbours to decay—closed factories, empty warehouses, defunct power stations, unused wharfs and shrunken mental hospitals. Those useless monuments to the changed industrial and social life of Britain make bad neighbours for those who live beside them. Vandalism and dereliction, dirt and decay ensure a rotten environment. They create hopelessness, undermine initiative and cause depression and gloom. Land and buildings unused and uncared for are not just an economic waste but a social cancer.
Much of such land is still in the hands of central and local government, nationalised industries and other public bodies such as the Health Service. Several factors militate against the use of this land, including little or no financial incentive to sell, management which lacks dynamism, public sector managers whose accountability is limited and often diffuse, inadequate entrepreneurial know-how and


drive, and limited or non-existent knowledge of property development. In some cases, it is continuing political resistance from some local authorities.
Where those factors can be changed a dramatic and rapid alteration follows. London's dockland is the prime example. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was the mover behind the London docklands development scheme and he deserves continuing credit for it. I hope that there will come a time when he is again in a position directly to influence the course of government to the benefit of many.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), with expert advice from outside the House, has evolved public land use management schemes as one way to overcome the problems which too often stand in the way of selling public unused and underused land for housing and other purposes.
I have spoken of the social cancer that derelict land represents, and there is still far too much of it. Figures from the Department of the Environment show more than 17,000 acres of derelict land in England as owned by county and district councils, with a further 28,000 acres owned by other public bodies. That was 40 per cent. of the total listed as derelict land in public ownership.
Not all but much of that land could be used to meet housing demand and thus help to limit the need to provide more and more green field sites for developers. Where derelict land and other urban land is used for housing, it is vital that development schemes are comprehensive, responsive to the desires of individuals and provided with a satisfactory environment around them.
Local authority city housing schemes of the 1960s and 1970s were often a disaster because planners, architects and, I have to admit, politicians paid scant heed to the wishes, though they were articulated clearly enough, of the often reluctant residents. It has taken us 25 years to learn the lessons of tower blocks. Where houses have been built for sale, the consumer has always had a say. That opportunity for choice now has a better chance of occurring in the rented sector under the Government's new initiatives, but there is still a long way to go. If the rapid development of city and other urban land is to take place, and thus relieve the pressure on green field development, such action can be successful only if homes and the lived-in environment around them are attractive to the people. Britain has not been good at achieving attractive modern towns and cities. The challenge now and in the future is to make them better places in which to live.
I return to the subject of green field sites and Government policy on specific planning applications. Pressure from would-be developers is relentless, be it for warehousing, factories, offices, shopping centres or new towns. My purpose in initiating this debate—and many of my hon. Friends will share my view—is to make it clear to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, whose appointment I welcome, that there is growing concern about existing and potential overdevelopment in parts of Britain, particularly in the south. We want him to take full cognisance of our concern because it reflects that of many of our constituents and supporters, who look to the Government to balance the demand for homes against the need to protect the environment. They are not arguing like Luddites against

all things new—they want planning law to be used to achieve a proper balance, and if it is inadequate for that purpose, it should be changed.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is my hon. Friend aware of the way in which what appears to be a certainty suddenly becomes an uncertainty? For example, there is a proposition to build on the edge of my constituency a parkway station in the middle of a gap which every local authority in the area had designated as a gap which should not be closed. Now we are all apprehensive lest once the station is built there will be no way of protecting the area, so that what was a complete certainty has suddenly become a total uncertainty.

Mr. Wolfson: My hon. Friend reinforces my point, and no doubt other hon. Members will refer to specific changes.
Regional and county structure plans provide a framework for the control of growth. Land earmarked for future development is known, local authorities can make their dispositions accordingly, and local people know roughly where they stand. But the readiness of development groups to challenge existing guidelines—and to do so with blatant disregard for the stated views of Ministers, local authorities and communities—is setting the cat among the pigeons. An application to build a new town in Oxfordshire, to be known felicitously as Stone Bassett, is a prime example of that. Happily, that scheme has been thrown out. That scheme, which had no place in any county or district plan, was evolved between a development consortium and a local farmer. The cost in money, time, worry and stress to the small community that would have been engulfed by the scheme has been immense.
My constituents and I have benefited from a similar decision taken on an application for a major out-of-town shopping centre at Hewitts Farm close by the M25 in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). There, too, developers had been repeatedly warned by Ministers that such an application was most unlikely to be successful because it fell outside all the relevant criteria. The developers nevertheless persisted but, I am glad to say, without success. That is the response that we look to the Secretary of State for the Environment to give in such cases—and not, as has happened over Foxley Wood, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), to allow the application on appeal. My hon. Friend raised that issue in the House only this afternoon.
I end by asking the Minister to convey to the Secretary of State my request that as one of his first acts in his new job he should reconsider the Foxley Wood decision and overturn it. That would give a clear and definite signal that on the development of green field sites his tiller is hard over to green.

Sir Peter Emery: The late hour and the number of hon. Members who wish to take part in this debate emphasise the extreme importance that a number of senior hon. Members attach to planning and to the protection of the environment.
In your other role as Chairman of Ways and Means, I suggest that it might have been helpful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if the 10-minute rule on speeches had applied


throughout these debates because we might thus have saved an hour and a half for other speeches or for time in which to bowl along through the other debates because many hon. Members have spoken for longer than 10 minutes. However, I shall attempt to hold to that time limit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) should be congratulated immensely on bringing this matter to the House's attention. The fears that he has expressed are evident not only in the south-east and around London and all the main cities; but in many other parts of the country, not least in the south-west. I shall use east Devon and my constituency of Honiton as an illustration. It contains some of our most beautiful countryside, such as the deep coombs and valleys, the commons at Woodbury and the red cliffs along the coast from Lyme Regis to Exmouth. The ancient farmland, village life and the seashore make for an ideal constituency with more than its share of countryside of outstanding natural beauty.
The natural beauty of many parts of the country has been bequeathed to us by past generations and is something that we only borrow and use. We should protect it before handing it on—I hope unsullied and unspoiled—for the benefit of future generations.
The concrete jungle is spreading not only in our big cities and towns, but in many parts of our countryside. Once spread, it eats into the greenness of the countryside which can never be restored and that is something to which we should begin to pay considerable attention. The speed of the movement of the population around the country, and especially into the south-west, bears on this problem.
Having been a Member of the House for six years, I was defeated in 1966 and 330 days later came back in a by-election as the Member of Parliament for my present constituency. That was in 1967. My constituency then included part of the city of Exeter, Topsham, Ottery St. Mary, rural and town, right up to Broadhembury where a former and well-known hon. Member, Sir Cedric Drewe, still has his family home. Payhembury and Plymtree, and had an electorate of about 63,000. I have lost those areas. I still have all the coast, Honiton, Axminster, Budleigh Salterton and Sidmouth. If I added to my present electorate of 83,000 the parishes that I had in 1967, the electorate would be 107,000—an expansion in 21 years of more than 70 per cent.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Is my hon. Friend not illustrating something about which we are all worried—the way in which the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which is controlled by the Government, presents statistics on population development which become a self-fulfilling prophecy? If it says that another 50,000 people will move to the Honiton area in the next 10 years, the planners give credence to that projection by allowing development which enables 50,000 people to move into the area. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must consider how they move people who have no intention of moving until the Government direct them to do so because the Government's statistical department says they should?

Sir Peter Emery: I understand my hon. Friend's argument, but it is not so much that the Government direct them there.
I was about to say that we cannot go on in this way. There is no way in which the countryside can continue to absorb so much housing if we are to maintain its beauty. I accept the considerable need for housing, but we have to balance that need with the impact on the environment.
Many retired people would like to find a home in east Devon or the south-west. Many thousands have already done so, but we cannot simply continue to build homes so that demand is automatically met. East Devon cannot continue to absorb this catastrophic population explosion. We cannot, and must not, allow the continued spread of the concrete jungle as, once it has come, it cannot he taken back.
When I first represented Exmouth, it had a population of 17,000. It has been allowed to spread out and more than 30,000 people now live there. Looking down on Colyton from the hills, one can see the beautiful, old, small country town, but the expansion into housing estates around it is ruining it and the countryside.
I am taking the example of my constituency, but I believe that the same applies to the north-east just as it does to the south-east. We cannot allow this spread of the city. There is now the possibility of about 280 acres being taken from Exeter airport. The Devon agricultural show is being moved from inside the city to east Devon. There is a possibility of a new industrial estate being put on Stuarts land, which also is outside Exeter.
Given the way in which inquiries are now proceeding, and the way in which appeals are being allowed by the Department of the Environment, I believe that in the next 15 years we shall see development spreading out of those sites. Within 20 or 25 years, Exeter city will be demanding that its boundaries be widened to eat into approximately a quarter more of east Devon. I do not think that that makes sense either to the Government or to those who wish to protect the environment in which they live.
I wish not merely to complain, but to make suggestions. First, I believe that the views of the local planning authority and the advice given by parish and town councils must now be allowed to stand, and to be overturned only in extreme instances by the Department's officials or inspectors on appeal. The views of local people must be taken into account much more.
Secondly, we need to revise the Government's guidenotes to local authorities so that they do not lead developers to believe that they will be able to get around local officials. Local officials should not use them as a "guard" with which to advise councillors to grant planning requests, because if they do not they are likely to find that the guidenotes will allow appeals: often councillors do not hold to their preferred judgments, having been warned by officials that any appeal will be won by the developer.
The Department's guidance note No. 12, published in 1988, stresses the need for
clear up-to-date local plans, consistent with national, regional and structure plan policies and setting out detailed policies and specific proposals for the use of land.
When a matter goes to appeal, the inspector will have the views of the local planning authority and the developer and the guidance notes on the needs of housing. The balance is two-to-one in favour of the developer if a local plan does not exist. That local plan should be immediately available.
I urge the Minister to back the policy that I am supporting in my constituency: that local people and local parishes should produce a draft local plan and submit it to


their district council. Even if not approved, it can be used in evidence until something is approved, so that the inspector can refer to some aspect of local planning.
I have to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that his Department is immensely unpopular in the south-west. The Government are not seen to be bending over backwards to protect the environment. Ministers say that that is what they want, but their words are not borne out by what happens when inspectors deal with appeals. If Ministers do not quickly come to grips with the matter, it will become a serious problem not only for the Government but for the country.

3 am

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) on a most lucid exposition of the bare bones of this important case. I wish that at this extraordinary hour of the morning we could all put across a case so well.
I welcome the appearance of a new Minister on this subject and hope that he will appreciate that for years some of us have been seeking to pressurise the Government to take a different view. We are aware of his open-minded approach and I hope that he will feel able to take yet another look at the background to the difficulties raised by planning applications, not just in the south and south-east but around our urban conurbations,.
Among those who take an interest in these matters are colleagues from cities such as York, Chester, Manchester and Liverpool and from as far west as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). That shows that the problem is not confined to the south-east, although for obvious reasons the pressures on the home counties are greater.
Previous Ministers have sought to dodge the fact that central Government must take responsibility for deciding where planning applications should be accepted. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) hinted in his intervention, there is no point in a system in which the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is required to produce a figure that is revised by an astonishing degree in a short time—such as 30 per cent. in two years. That is then cut by the Department when it suits the Department to do so. The south-eastern SERPLAN and the counties that belong to it are then required to share the number of houses and provide room for them. That is not planning. It is necessary for the Government to state the figures that they will approve for SERPLAN.
I commend the concept of planning regions and think that the Government are working on it in an attempt to extend the general thought of planning by region. I hope that the Government will start to take some responsibility for deciding total numbers because it is not good enough to do it in the way that it is being presently done. Some people understand that to mean telling people where to live, but that is not the case. It is saying where planning applications will be granted, and from that decision economic consequences will flow. At no time during discussion of such matters has our group ever moved from the acceptance of the fact that if planning applications are continually refused in areas of heavy pressure, it will have economic consequences.
One has only to look at planning applications and house prices in the north to see that what we propose has a beneficial side effect. It is that parts of the country where there has been some economic neglect will begin to receive extra attention because of the relative cheapness of housing, better facilities, easier modes of transport and greater availability of labour. The Government should acknowledge that they have a role in planning the nation's population and location. If they did that, much of the problem would start to go away. I hope that the Minister will not shelter behind the excuse that he has a quasi-judicial capacity in such matters and is unable to comment on individual cases and applications. That has often happened in the past.
We have a very British system, in which the Government put themselves at arm's length from the initial application by allowing, quite correctly, the local authority to deal with it in the first place. Then there is an appeal, they appoint an inspector and do what they were going to do anyway. The whole process has become ludicrously expensive. A huge legal industry has arisen around it, with vast costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks mentioned the personal distress caused to many people during such a process.
While I welcome a number of the decisions that have been taken recently against some of the activities of such organisations as consortium developments, the Foxley Wood decision stands out as an illogical extension of everything that the Government have said. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) is active in this case and has worked closely with us on it. He raised the matter this afternoon. The Foxley Wood application is contrary to the local plan and to the county structure plan. It takes in a large part of a site of special scientific interest, and the local inspector recommended that the application should be turned down. My right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State for the Environment said that he was minded to overturn the inspector's decision. I suggest that my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State be unminded, and that he has a close look at this. Overturning the decision will do more than cause an enormous amount of anger in a part of the country where the Government still command a great deal of respect and support. I would not wish to make too much of this point, but it is a fair one. It will also establish an unfortunate precedent and will give a green light to those developers who believe that, by modestly decreasing or increasing numbers, they can establish new towns of 4,500 houses, with all the consequence that such a development produces.
Such a development would be too small to develop much of the infrastructure that is needed, so the local hospitals and schools, special facilities and roads will be overloaded by up to 20,000 people. It is not so small that it will not have an effect. One could go on for a long time about the undesirability of such developments. People have said that the county accepted the figures, but it did not. It was told the figures by central Government and was allocated the figures by SERPLAN. If the Government insist on allowing substantial planning applications for housing developments in the home counties, including northern Hampshire, my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State will have a load of political trouble, and a great deal of support for our party will be used to prevent such precedents. I hope that Foxley Wood will be an example of the new view prevailing in Marsham street.

Mr. Steen: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for raising two points in an intervention, but he makes an important point about infrastructure. Is not the problem in the south compounded by the Government's failure to provide the necessary infrastructure when they allow development—whether for 10 or 50 houses—by way of roads, police, schools, hospitals and lighting? People coming to an area are expected to be absorbed and the infrastructure is expected to cope, so Government funding is not made available to provide the facilities that those people rightly expect. Should not a criterion for planning in the future be that the Government should agree to give planning permission for the development of a village or two only if the public funds are available to maintain the existing high standard of facilities for those who move in?

Mr. Wiggin: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is worth saying that we are concerned about those who are our constituents now. We would, of course, be deeply interested if others were to move in. It is our duty, however, to protect those who are our constituents now. That is only right and proper. I have never flinched from the charge "Not in your back yard." So what? Surely that is my responsibility. I accept entirely what my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said about the quality of life.
I understand that a planning Bill is to be introduced during the next Session and that it will contain a proposal to alter the not yet well established procedure of structure plans. It has taken about 14 years to complete the first round of structure plans. When the procedure is just about beginning to work, it is somewhat precipitate to throw it overboard. We should bear in mind that housebuilders, who in these circumstances perhaps cannot be seen as our friends, believe that a firm structure plan is better from their point of view than too much flexibility. They need firmness. They need to know the amount of land that will be available so that they can plan their land banks, assess demand and establish their pricing and numbers. I understand that the Council for the Protection of Rural England will say that it does not believe that abolishing structure plans is likely to be helpful from its point of view. Many of my colleagues believe that the Government will be treading on delicate ground if they proceed with the abolition of structure plans as they propose. It is the rigidity of the structure plan that we want to see maintained.
We have come to find ourselves in an unholy mess with what I can describe only as planning by bribery. If a developer wants to erect a large number of houses, he need think only of an imaginative scheme to go alongside it. That can be a road, for example, or in a case—but perhaps it would be best not to go into my constituency problems. I am remaining somewhat neutral about one in particular. A developer can approach a local authority and say, "Wouldn't you like to have this and that? Incidentally, I want 1,500 houses." That leads to planning by bribery, and that is not the concept which thcose who drafted the original legislation 40 years ago had in mind. A way must be found of overcoming the problem.
The political reaction to all these matters originates in a deterioration in the quality of life when too many people come to live in too small an area, and here I take up the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams. If the quality of life can be maintained, the democratic objection to an increase in housing numbers in an area will

be much reduced. Unless the Government can find ways of providing the necessary facilities—I have roads in mind especially, which are in a scandalous condition in constituences such as mine—the problem will continue as each housing application comes forward.
I hope that my colleague from the county of Avon, the hon. Member for South Hams, will establish himself as being extremely green minded. Those who speak on these matters and who take an active interest in them have been as green as it is possible to be. Accusations that the Conservative party is ignoring these matters should be set against an account of our activities. I hope that the deep feelings that are held by many of us will be respected. The number of us who are in the Chamber at this extraordinary hour should reveal the depth of feeling among the supporters of the Government.

Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I have been in this place for 15 years and in each of those years planning issues have formed the largest part of my constituency case load. If anything, the case load has increased in recent times.
I was playing a tape of Michael Flanders and Donald Swann the other day in my car. During the course of the tape Michael Flanders says that a friend of his has gone to live in a suburb of south London called Brighton. That is rather daunting as the tape was recorded in about 1963. I fear that we are well on the way to that kind of "megopolis", whereby it would be possible to drive from the south coast to north London, with all the communities between them joined together.
The centre of my own constituency of Chertsey and Walton is only 22 miles from Westminster. As it is so conveniently within commuting distance of London, many people want to live there and housing developments in the area have proliferated over the years. During my time in the House, motorways have also arrived in the form of the M25 and the M3, which bisect my constituency. One can add to that the proximity of Heathrow, helicopter routes, a small local airfield, and the most recent and sensationally grotesque proposal for a waste tip, which is to take the form not of landfill but of what I can only describe as "landbuild" as the waste to be disposed of by Cementation will reach a height of 70 m. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members will dwell on the prospect of a waste tip 70 m high in the rural heart of my constituency.
My constituency is not helped topographically by having gravel deposits below the surface. There are constant battles over gravel extraction, and in recent years the local community has been successful in saving Chertsey Meads, where people can walk or exercise their horses, and Wey Manor Farm. Nevertheless, planning pressures lead my constituents to look for greater protection from planning laws, not less. They seek to avoid the joining of small communities, which is different from some of the problems described by my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is all part of the same picture, but one is not necessarily always talking in terms of lovely rural countryside which risks having a Foxley Wood dropped in the middle of it. For my constituents, it is important that their relatively small towns and communities are not joined together. Even if the individual areas of green land


which separate them appear insignificant, they are the only lungs available to my constituents for recreation and exercise.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said, planning expectations become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Developers take a long-term view and do not mind holding on to land for 10, 15 or 20 years. They continually make applications and wear down the local council. I should like to see an escalating tariff, which would make it more and more expensive for developers to continue submitting fresh planning applications. The local community often has to make great efforts to raise money to retain a Queen's Counsel, only to be certain that even if they win an appeal the chances are that the developer will soon be making a similar if not identical application. The developers do not need to worry as they have the time and the resources to continue relentlessly grinding down the local community. That is highly unsatisfactory.
Developers often denigrate the political process by their comments in local newspapers or at public inquiries. To them the process of local democracy is somewhat inconvenient—a rather tedious formality which stands in the way of the inevitable, ongoing process of joining up all the communities in a constituency such as mine until only a vast outer London sprawl remains.
As Members of Parliament, we have a duty to try to protect for future generations something resembling a decent environment and a decent quality of life. We therefore look to the Government to operate the planning laws in a way that is certain and tough and that shows that some things will not be allowed. The message will finally reach some developers that there are some activities in which they will be able to engage. We need development in some parts of the country in the controlled and careful manner that my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) described when he introduced the debate in such an admirable manner. Our fundamental duty as Members of Parliament is to do all that we can to prevent any further erosion of the standard of living and quality of life of our constituents, and so much of that depends on how the planning laws are operated.

Mr. Anthony Steen: It is always a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) at any time of the day or night. Even at 3.20 in the morning it is a great delight to see him here.
My hon. Friend will agree that the group of hon. Members here tonight are the advance party. The Minister is undergoing a small test of how he will respond to what is in fact an army of about 100 Members of Parliament, whose force he should not underestimate, representing Conservative Members from all over the country, who feel that the Government have got their planning policy hopelessley wrong.
We are delighted to see my hon. Friend the new Minister on the Front Bench. We hope that he will take back to his Department what is being said by the advance party. I feel sure that the new team in the Department of the Environment, including the Secretary of State, would wish to come to terms and to grips with what to us is probably the most serious problem in our constituencies—the unrestrained and tasteless growth of the population

with a consequent increase in housing on a scale that has never been seen before and that is destroying the quality of life and the beauty of the countryside in our constituencies on a scale and at a rate which is utterly unacceptable to many of my hon. Friends.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to realise that. although there is a small team of comparatively senior and influential Members here tonight, it is nothing to what he may see if the Government do not get this right and start having a meaningful discussion with the Back-Bench groups who feel that something has gone wrong and needs to be put right.
We welcome my hon. Friend the Minister on the Front Bench tonight, but we have seen a great number of Ministers in that place. No sooner does a Minister get to grips with the problem than he is moved on again. It is rather like Dante's "Inferno". As soon as they get a grasp of the problem my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister moves them on again. I do not know how many Ministers have preceded my hon. Friend or how many Back Benchers have tried to explain the problem to those Ministers. As soon as they understand the point, off they go again.
I hope that my hon. Friend will dig his heels in and say, "I am not moving on. I am staying right here until I have dealt with this tremendous problem." We know of my hon. Friend's conviction in planning matters. We know that this is new to him and we know that Lewisham does not have the green fields that he would like it to have, but we feel sure that he would not wish all our constituencies south of Watford to be an unrestrained growth of concrete. That is what we are here to discuss.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, who is known to be balanced in his judgment and approach, introduced the debate in the most measured tones. We are not saying that there should be no development in the south. We are not saying that there should be no growth, no new homes, no starter homes for people in low-income groups. We are desperately keen on more homes for indigenous local people, who are being driven out of the rural constituencies in the south-west because of the great demand, especially among the retired population, to come to live in these beautiful areas.
We want more starter homes and more growth, but it must be restrained, it must be indigenous and it must be controlled to ensure that the necessary infrastructure exists. It is no good building more and more homes if there are not sufficient schools to which the children of families who live in them can go. Ivybridge in my constituency, just south of the Dartmoor national park. is one of the fastest growing towns in Europe; the county council has allowed so much growth that the schools have 30, 40 or even 50 children to a class. That is quite scandalous.
As one builds more and more houses, one places greater demand on hospitals. The Government should not allow areas to expand if there are not enough hospital places. Similarly, the police say that they do not have sufficient manpower to protect all those people and that the population is growing too fast. That, to my mind, is unrestrained and irresponsible planning. Any amendment of the structure plan must include a relationship between growth and infrastructure, and we must spell out what infrastructure is required per thousand people before allowing any further growth.
Our first message to the Minister is that we do not oppose expansion and development, but we oppose pure


market force development which pays no regard to the quality of life of those who live in our areas. There is nothing wrong in Conservative Members saying that, and we know that it will have considerable support from the new regime at the Department of the Environment. I hope that, as a starting point, the Minister will convey our belief and our concern about that.
My remarks will be on a slightly different tack from those of other hon. Members. I have had one concern for more than 10 years, and I am getting nearly as bored with it as are Ministers who hear me make almost identical speeches every time they are here to answer a debate, but the point is worth making again because it remains just as relevant. The pressure on the green fields around our cities is aggravated by the fact that the Government have repeatedly failed to use the vacant, dormant, under-utilised land in public ownership that exists throughout the country, which is allowed to continue to grow in quantity in spite of the register set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the then Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend rightly said, "We do not have to continue to build on green field sites at the present rate if we can release some of the land that exists amid our urban sprawls. It is vacant, dormant and derelict; it is surplus to requirement and it is in public ownership." As many of my hon. Friends will know, that is a matter on which I have majored. I have been driven almost to the point of distraction in my search to discover how much land there is, where it is, what is happening to it and why it is not being used.
In this short debate it might be worth refreshing the Minister's memory of what we are talking about and why there is a correlation between the continued demand for green field development and the Government's continued failure to do anything about the amount of public vacant land which continues to increase and continues not to be used.
Between 1982 and 1986, on a broad-brush approach, there were more than 100,000 acres of public unused and underutilised land on the Department of the Environment's register. That figure is fairly accurate because there are 39 full-time officials in the Department of the Environment dealing with the register and the Minister may like to talk to them about it. The register is like an A to Z telephone directory. It contains the lists of all the lands that are vacant, dormant and underutilised in the country. It is enormous and lists thousands of sites. It is the job of those civil servants constantly to update the register and to put down a marker as more and more land becomes available.
It is true to say that, whereas there were more than 100,000 acres on the register until 1986, that figure has been reduced. There are now about 85,200 acres. However, that comprises 8,134 sites. We could build an awful lot of homes, hospitals, schools and industrial and office buildings on 8,134 sites. The Minister should not be mistaken about this. Those sites are of one acre and over because my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, insisted on the exclusion of great tracts of land. Therefore, those 85,200 acres are only land that fits the criteria laid down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley.
Professor Alice Coleman of Kings college, the famous lady who deals with land use, says that the true figure is

nearer double the 85,200 acres if we ignore the exclusions. Whether it is 85,000 or 170,000 acres, the important point for the House to consider is that that figure is not static.
The most fascinating result of my research into these matters is that each year the Minister will claim that an enormous number of acres have come off the register, but an equal number have been added. The planning process is creating more and more land. It is like a food machine: more meat is put into the mincer, and understandably more comes out.
In February 1989, in reply to a parliamentary question to the former Minister, before he moved into his next phase of Dante's "Inferno," I was told that, while in 1984 some 6,800 acres of vacant land were removed from the register, the Minister had to admit that 7,700 acres came on to it. In 1985, although 12,300 acres were removed, 10,800 acres were added. In 1986, some 6,300 acres were added, and 7,700 acres were added in 1987. In 1988, 4,800 acres were added. However many acres come off the register at one end, the very planning process produces more vacant, dormant and derelict land in public ownership at the other end. However many acres the Government say they have got off the register, we can be sure that more and more will be coming on to it. The Government should not feel complacent about the fact that land is coming off the register when so much continues to go on to it.
Since 1982, a total of 37,805 acres have become vacant, dormant and underutilised. That means that 37,805 acres could and should have been used, and could still be used, for housing before green field sites have to be used. Also, much public vacant land will become private vacant land when nationalised industries are privatised. For example, 2,231 acres are in electricity industry ownership, and 2,952 acres are in water authority ownership. I am sure that my hon. Friends would like to know that the Minister's own Property Services Agency has 936 acres of vacant land. Surely the Minister should set an example to the country and get rid of some of that land before he starts to poach green field sites belonging to local authorities and other developers.
The point that I have been making tirelessly and tiresomely for many years is that nearly 49,000 acres of land were in local authority ownership on 31 May 1989. Also, 7,900 sites are on the land register, and we are being pressed to use more green field sites in preference to public vacant land in unused or underutilised areas. That is: my first contention. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friends know, I can go on for a day and a night. This matter is so important that the House would like to hear more about it at any time of the day or night.
The planning process is creating and developing more public vacant land, and the Minister's Department is doing nothing to use it first. He may wish to be reminded of a splendid publication called "PLUMS—Public Land Utilisation Management Schemes", which I must admit that I wrote. That book offers a solution to public vacant land problems. At this time of the night, I do not wish my hon. Friend the Minister to think that he can get off lightly by being told the plot and the way in which the story unfolds. I am told that the book is better than Horlicks. If he takes the book home tonight, it will give him an insight into how he can tackle the problem.
It would be quite wrong to continue any further. I told the Minister about chapter one. There are another nine chapters, and they should be brought to successive debates


that the Minister has the good fortune to hear. At the moment, all he should know is that he has seen the advance party approaching. If another 90 colleagues were present, he would find himself in the Chamber for a considerably longer time. I urge him to stress to the Secretary of State that not an idle group but a cross-section of our great party is deeply concerned that the Government have failed in their responsibility to tackle the problem of tasteful development and to preserve our green and pleasant land.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: This has been an excellent debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) on his introduction and I congratulate my hon. Friends on the variety of points that they have made. I shall try not to repeat any of those points, but I strongly agree with the force of the arguments. The surroundings that we enjoy are far more important to people than politicians yet seem to realise. We have a duty to leave to our children and grandchildren an environment of which we are leaseholders and not freeholders. The point of my hon. Friend's case is right and I hope that the Minister will recognise that.
I say to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) that we are right to say what should happen in our back yards. We are concerned about green fields, more particularly in the debate this evening because of our constituents who live in or near them, but also because those green fields are there for people from Hammersmith to come and enjoy. They are, therefore, an asset to the people of Hammersmith. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) mentioned that we are committed to making inner cities places in which people want to live and work. That is the other half of our debate.
The former Secretary of State for the Environment was certainly a strong protector of the green belt. His decision on the Grange estate, just outside my constituency, was especially welcome to the people in Dorset and to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), who would have liked to have been present for this debate. That illustrates that we are concerned not about the green belt over which the former Secretary of State was resolute, for which I praise him, but about the other green fields, where bodies such as Consortium Developments—the bulls in the delicate china shop of our environment—behave in a co-ordinated and over-powering way in launching their attacks to try to establish new towns in a completely inappropriate manner. I hope that the new Secretary of State will resist new towns in Foxley Wood and elsewhere.
On many occasions I have said that our planning system is out of date and needs to be changed because it does not meet today's needs. I shall make two general points which I do not think have been mentioned before. First, I believe that our planning law should recognise environmental capacities. By that I mean that a place's capacity to absorb new development is finite. That should be a factor in planning law. Developers argue all the time that any number of new developments could be fitted in. Our planning law should look at the matter from the other perspective and say, "What developments can a place and its infrastructure take on?" That will give us some different answers.
My second point, which has been mentioned by some of my hon. Friends already, concerns numbers. I want to see assessments of numbers based upon need and not the demands of the developers. Indeed, one of my concerns about the White Paper is that I understand that its assessment of numbers is based upon the SERPLAN system of producing anticipated numbers. The SERPLAN system of numbers is really developer based and driven out of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. I do not believe that is good enough. We should not be trying to assess numbers in that way. It is based not on need, but on demand, which is developer driven.
We shall be discussing the White Paper in the next Session of Parliament. The Government put out proposals in 1986 to try to simplify and speed up the planning process. That is an aim that I share and applaud, but I believe that that aim can be achieved only by tightening up the planning system, so that at every level, national, regional and local, it is made clear—certainly more clear than it is at present—how the land is to be used. It is proposed that county structure plans should be abolished and replaced by district development plans, accompanied by a statement of county planning policies.
At first glance, the White Paper seems to share some of the objectives that some of my colleagues and I put forward in a pamphlet entitled "This Pleasant Land", which has already been mentioned.

Mr. Steen: It is very good.

Mr. Baker: As usual, my hon. Friend is very kind.
Having read the White Paper closely, I am concerned that the Department of the Environment will produce the figures on which, at every stage, the plans are to be based. The figures will be provided not by local authorities or determined with their agreement but by the Department under the SERPLAN system.
My grounds for fearing that the White Paper proposals will involve the Secretary of State at a lower level of the planning process appear in paragraph 2.13 of the White Paper. The Secretary of State will have to agree that a statement of county planning policies shall cover any matters other than those set out in the six-point core of strategic issues. The paragraph continues by saying that county planning statements must be updated and, indeed, altered following the issue of planning guidance by the Secretary of State. Under the White Paper's proposals, the Secretary of State's powers will increase considerably, which gives me—and should give many other people—considerable cause for concern.
In the past week, I have put forward some proposals for low-cost housing in rural areas. Rural towns and villages have become affluent and prices have risen more rapidly than elsewhere. Migration of people from cities, movement on retirement, inadequate planning policies and lower-than-average incomes have restricted access to low-cost housing for local people. In many rural areas—especially, though not exclusively, in southern England—the problem is acute. Inadequate attention is being given to the housing needs of people on lower incomes, whose contribution to community life is essential, and they are being squeezed out of the villages in which their families have lived, often for hundreds of years.
To deal with that problem, housing surveys should be carried out locally. The Department should support the process of carrying out surveys and should give advice on


how they should be done. Parish meetings should be given powers to conduct the operation and to require local authorities to carry out surveys in the absence of parish or town councils. The cost should be met by district councils with help from the Treasury.
Having identified sites in a parish or town, parish councils should be encouraged to propose to their annual meetings that village housing trusts should be formed for the provision of low-cost accommodation to meet local needs. I should like to see a more consistent approach to the provision of low-cost housing. I advocate, in this and in many other ways, greater powers of responsibility being given to parish councils in planning policy. They are generally aware of the parish's needs, including the need for more jobs to replace those that agriculture no longer provides and the need for local housing. They are exactly the bodies which should oversee planning. I no longer believe that council-owned housing is the way to deal with problems in rural areas.
I support my hon. Friends' remarks about the urgent need to change our planning legislation and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider carefully the speeches that have been made.

Mr. Clive Soley: The Labour party shares the concerns expressed by Conservative Members about what is happening to the countryside and the villages of England, particularly in the south. About a year and a half ago, I spoke to the Royal Town Planning Institute and said that the south of England was no longer the countryside that we remembered, but a form of urban parkland, because it was managed countryside with an increasing amount of building.
Conservative Members have brought this on themselves. In the 1960s and 1970s, increasing overdevelopment was a serious problem in the south of England. The last thing it needed was what it got in 1979, when the new Secretary of State for the Environment boasted of having a bonfire of planning controls. He has had the audacity to complain because the now recently departed and little lamented Secretary of State for the Environment poured petrol on the flames.
The Conservative party destroyed planning as we had known it. It handed planning on a platter to the developers. Now it complains because developers are reaping the benefits. The Government's other fatal mistake was to undermine and devalue local government to the extent that it no longer controls its area. Those are the reasons why so many Conservative Members are saying, "Please give some power back to my local authority, the planners and my local community." The Conservative Government took that power away.
The Government then fell back on the daft argument about market forces. I could hardly believe my ears when the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), first looking round to see that no Whip was present to report him to the Prime Minister, said that market forces could undermine the quality of life. Of course they can. The Government have made it much easier for market forces to operate, although there can never be a free market for housing. By trying to pretend that there is a free market, they opened up the worst aspects of ordinary development which are on green field sites.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) complains about green field site building. It makes much more sense to build on green field sites than on derelict land, because it is cheaper and easier, and provides more flexibility in development. When he opens a debate about ending green field site development and using derelict land, he should make it clear that there are only two ways to achieve that: by introducing more planning legislation for local authorities, not by undermining and destroying them, or by subsidising builders to develop derelict land.
The "not in my back yard" syndrome is caused by Government policies. Either people build on a green field site or not at all. It is worth examining the building figures for the past 12 months. The Government expect the free market to provide the housing that is necessary. The new build figures this year are 20 per cent. down on last year's figures. Why? Because of interest rates. Who is being provided for? The hon. Member for Sevenoaks believes that there is choice in housing. What is there for his constituents—not just those on average or below average income but above average income—to buy or rent? There is a catastrophic shortage of low-cost accommodation for rent or sale in southern Britain.
Whenever I make a speech on this, I receive letters and phone calls from people who live in areas such as the hon. Member's, saying, "I live in a £200,000 house but there is nowhere for my son or daughter to rent or buy. There is nowhere for the village postman, the nurse, the driver or teacher." What used to be regarded as an inner-city problem is developing in rural areas. Communities are being torn apart, just as they were in inner-city areas. Unless we address that through planning, we shall have the same problems in rural areas as we have in the cities.
It is daft to suggest that we use docklands as an example. It is an appalling example of the Government pouring taxpayers' money into massive subsidies which result in developments occurring in the opposite way to the way they occur in every other developed country. Other countries put the infrastructure in first, subsidised by the public sector, and then the private sector is allowed to complete the development.
In docklands, where it is happening the other way round, the money is pouring into the pockets of the developers out of the pockets of the taxpayers, and we are getting the wrong type of development. How can people who need low-cost housing find homes in docklands? I warn the hon. Member for Sevenoaks that it will happen in his constituency in the same way as it is happening in London.
The answer is to give local authorities back their planning powers, to cease to undermine and demoralise local councillors and planning officers and to make sure that the planning rules put the ball in the court of the community and councillors and not in the court of the developers.
Developers are at present setting the pace, not just because of the appeals system but because of the way in which the Government have structured the market. It can never be a free market, because the supply of land and buildings is too inelastic; because the subsidy system works against it being a free market, particularly mortgage income tax relief, which destroys the concept of a free market; and because, although the Government have destroyed many of the planning regulations, there are sufficient regulations left to ensure that a free market cannot operate.
One of the tragedies of the philosophy that has been rammed down our throats for the last 10 years is the belief that a free market is the best of all possible options for most people. In fact, it is a short-term policy, and for the quality of the environment in areas such as the south of Britain, where 20 million people live, it is a disaster. That is why the Conservatives are getting into so much trouble in this part of Britain.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) that this has been an excellent debate. I fully respect the clear strength of feeling that exists on this issue, as evidenced by the speeches of a number of my senior hon. Friends who, among them, have decades of much-valued experience and whose views have provided a helpful and thought-provoking debate and an excellent start to my work on this subject.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) that we will listen carefully and attempt to match our words with deeds, an objective which was sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). I became somewhat concerned when my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams said that as soon as a Minister said, "I understand", he was moved on. After just 18 hours in the job, I face that prospect with some trepidation. I have listened carefully and I am beginning to understand, and I hope that when I wake up later in the day I shall not be moved on because a number of important and challenging issues have been raised.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) for raising an issue that is of fundamental importance to the future character of the nation's towns, cities and countryside. Underlying all the policies has been concern that the pressure of development poses a threat to the environment. At at a time of unparalleled economic prosperity, that pressure and those concerns are heightened, particularly in the south-east of England, but—as my hon. Friends the Members for Honiton and for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said—in other parts of the country as well.
The debate, therefore, is about how to accommodate economic growth in ways that enhance the quality of life in urban and rural communities and conserve our

countryside heritage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said, it is a question of balancing the demand for homes against the existing environment. That process cannot ignore the changes that are taking place in society and in people's expectations.
Population growth is critical in this area, and I am grateful to hon. Members for assisting my learning curve by highlighting a number of important matters, not least the numbers question, an issue at which I shall look closely.
I shall, in the short time left to me, reflect on what I consider to be an essential matter that was raised by my hon. Friends. I refer to the availability of land in towns and cities and the need to ensure that such land is used in preference to green field sites. I agree with my hon. Friends on this point. I represent an area at the heart of the inner city—Lewisham—and I know that it is important that full and effective use is made of land within existing urban areas. My experience has shown that there are many opportunities arising from conversions, improvement and redevelopment, the bringing into use of neglected, unused or derelict land, including sites on land registers—I take on board the points made on that issue—and sites suitable for small-scale housing schemes in inner-city areas such as my constituency.
The important point is to put the land that is available in areas such as my constituency to good use. It is also important to make every effort to ensure that such land is placed as a priority over green field sites so that we can retain green field sites and the green belt. I appreciate that the debate has not dealt primarily with the green belts and I appreciate also my hon. Friends' comments on the success of that policy. I believe strongly that green belt policy should not allow for flexibility about what is or is not green belt land. However, that is another point and I hope that we can consider it carefully on other occasions. Many important points have been raised, not least the need to respond to local people and to ensure that their needs are met and that there is a mechanism to facilitate listening to and implementing their wishes more fully.
Those are only some of the issues that were raised. I have listened to all the issues discussed. I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me for not responding to all their points because of the time constraint, but I look forward to a constructive and—I hope—long-standing debate on this issue which will enable us to work constructively to achieve many of the goals that my hon. Friends have set for the Government in this constructive debate.

Orders of the Day — Strategic Planning (London)

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that hon. Members will forgive the pun, but as I came into the Chamber it dawned on me that on the last morning before the summer recess last year I had a slot at about the same time. On that occasion, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), replied on behalf of the Government in her maiden speech as a Minister.
My debate on that occasion was on the global environmental crisis. Little did I anticipate that the subject that I aired then would take off politically in the way that it did in the ensuing 12 months. It not only became the dominant issue at my party's conference in September, but it became the subject of the Prime Minister's now famous September speech and the major new issue on the political agenda. I hope that the issue that I raise today will become an issue of equal importance on the political agenda in this country and in our capital city, although I do not pretend that it has significance beyond that.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the draft strategic planning guidance for London. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and other hon. Members who do not represent London constituencies benefit from the tradition of having a strategic plan for your areas as part of the general planning system. Indeed, that is something that we had in London. Such strategic plans were prepared by local government until the abolition of the Greater London council.
During the passage of the Act abolishing the GLC, we had substantial debates about what should happen in relation to the planning of the capital city and the metropolitan area once the GLC was abolished. The debate concluded that a body to be called the London planning advisory committee should be set up, to be made up of the planning committee chairs or other representatives from all the London boroughs and the City of London. The committee's task was to advise the Secretary of State on all London-wide planning matters. It was agreed that its first task was to advise on the content of strategic guidance for the capital city. So it was that the London planning advisory committee was set up. It worked extremely hard and, on 25 October last year, produced the document "Strategic planning advice for London: Policies for the 1990s" as its advice to the Secretary of State.
One of the special things about the document is that it received unanimous support from the three parties which were represented on the committee. It was signed by the three party leaders. I think that everyone will pay tribute to the chairman, who happens to be a party colleague of mine—Councillor Sally Hanwee of Richmond. She and her committee and their officers produced a very worthwhile document.
The document presents some uplifting thoughts. The committee identified four themes which have made London what it has been at its best: London as a civilised city, London as a world city of trade, London as a city of residential neighbourhoods and communities, and London as a city which offers opportunities for all.
The committee says that it has attempted to set forth the planning policies necessary to ensure London's success

into the next century. It also says that the complexity of considering strategic planning matters for London, which accommodates 15 per cent. of the nation's population and work force and accounts for nearly one fifth of the gross domestic product, made it difficult to produce the advice. The need to provide a co-ordinated context for 33 separate planning authorities presented a greater problem than in the other metropolitan areas. Nevertheless, the committee did so unanimously. The document went to the Secretary of State and he issued, in March this year, draft strategic planning guidance for London, which is a much shorter document, mainly because it omits many of the important matters on which he was given advice and which I—and, I believe, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Soley)—will argue should have been included.
The debate is timely because it could not have happened later. We always knew that the Secretary of State planned to issue his guidance before the end of July. I understand that it is no secret that the Secretary of State may issue his guidance today—by which I mean Friday, not Thursday which is where we still are in the parliamentary time warp of an all-night sitting. I ask the Minister to agree, and to ask the Secretary of State to agree, not to issue the guidance today, but to have further consultation on it, especially on the matters about which there is still anxiety. The new Secretary of State, who I welcome, has an opportunity here to apply his mind to the document.
It was obvious from his time as Minister for Overseas Development that the Secretary of State is particularly concerned about environmental matters worldwide. He has been shown a good deal on our television screens this week padding around the Brazilian rain forests—and all credit to him for that—but I hope and believe that he is no less concerned about environmental matters closer to home. In many people's experience the environment is in pretty poor shape in our capital city, and I hope that I can persuade the Minister to agree that there is no need to insist dogmatically on publication today. I believe that the Secretary of State and his Ministers must be willing not to go ahead and issue a final strategic planning guidance that would show little change from the draft document.
Once produced, the document will effectively act as the strategic plan for London, and as a basis on which the local authorities will then draw up their unitary development plans. I know that that process should not be put off for months, with the whole exercise being repeated, but I believe that there are good reasons for delaying it somewhat. As the Minister probably knows, there has been widespread criticism of the draft guidance by those who have been consulted. Perhaps the most important criticism has come from the London advisory committee itself, again on an all-party basis. Other critics have been the London Boroughs Association, the Association of London Authorities, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Town and Country Planning Association and the Association of London Borough Planning Officers.
Along with the hon. Member for Hammersmith and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire)—who apologised to me some hours ago for not being able to attend the debate as he had a prior engagement to spend the evening with his family—and the three other Members of the group equally representative of the party groupings in the House, I am a member of the parliamentary cross-party London housing group of MPs, who are linked with a body called the Campaign for Homes in Central


London. We, too, have looked at the draft guidance, which was the subject of a conference held in county hall, and share the view that there is sufficient criticism and cause for concern for the document to be revised.
I have another reason for suggesting that the Minister should think again. Given the importance of the document, there has been inadequate consultation and debate. This is the first time that it has been debated in Parliament, the only other public debate being the one at county hall which took place in the middle of May. The consultation period was only 10 weeks.
It is important to delay if necessary because it is important to get things right. It has now become almost a cliché that London is grinding to a halt. Our transport system is increasingly clogged, and not just when there are rail, tube or bus strikes. It is generally more difficult to get around the capital, even without the additional influx which will result from Channel tunnel rail termini. Increasingly, there are staff shortages in key jobs and it is often impossible for people to acquire affordable homes. Those problems are not raised by people with a partisan political view. For example, Coopers and Lybrand was commissioned by ELPAC to carry out an independent survey, the result of which appeared in May. The survey report was called "Access to Housing in London" and confirmed the matters that I have mentioned.
The problems are so serious that it is imperative for us to get things right. I shall concentrate on one or two of the most significant matters and mention some others that are also important. The most significant matter in terms of immediacy and importance to the people affected is that we must strive to make London successful not just economically but in a way that will make it pleasant and satisfactory for Londoners to live in and for people to move around and work in.
To do that we must deal strategically with housing and housing policy. We need affordable housing and it must be continually available in our capital city. The Minister is a London Member and knows the pressures in his borough, as do the other London Members who are present. Unless there is a change to enable planning powers to intervene and influence the provision of housing, the market forces at work in London will continue ineluctably to drive up house prices. That is because London is a capital city and an international city to which people come. That produces additional forces which are not applied to our other towns and cities. Those factors price out people who have always lived here or less well paid people who need to live here because of their work.
We need a planning use class that enables land to be zoned specifically for low-cost or affordable housing. That idea has been considered in the Department because our all-party group has had discussions with Ministers responsible for housing and planning. Escalating amounts of public subsidy are spent on acquisitions in competition with the private sector in order to provide a decreasing number of new homes. Cost limits, which were developed to limit expenditure on, for example, housing association acquisition costs, mean that central London is getting fewer affordable homes.
I have as many constituency pressures as any hon. Member, not least because in the docklands there are expensive developments while on the other side of the road

people are still living in poor council accommodation. The recommendations made to the Secretary of State by LPAC should be adopted. It recommended in paragraph 2.17:
Increased emphasis on the provision of satisfactory housing at affordable prices, particularly for those on low incomes.
Paragraph 3.5 refers to
An approach which emphasises housing needs rather than simply meeting housing demands.
Paragraph 3.2 talks about
The objective of sustaining and developing stable and secure residential neighbourhoods and communities and preventing any losses from existing dwelling stock.
In paragraph 4.3 LPAC mentions
Housing capacity figures for boroughs linked to assessments of need for low-cost housing and a requirement to demonstrate how these will be met, including key workers and groups with special housing need.
Paragraph 4.4 refers to
Agreements with developers to ensure the maximum amount of low-cost housing in new-build schemes with a minimum of 25 per cent. affordable homes in larger schemes.
The proposal was clearly made that a high proportion of new dwellings should be for social or non-market housing. The Coopers and Lybrand report, "Access to Housing in London", said as strongly as any such report could how urgent the matter is. It concluded:
Access to housing in London will only be secured for those who legitimately require it if action is taken on a scale not yet seen or even contemplated.
It says that London's housing market is a special case. Because of the international position of the capital city, the usual pricing mechanisms do not apply—the point that I made earlier. However, our economy is dependent on low-paid service sector workers, who find it increasingly difficult to live here, and so have to live away and commute in, which they also find difficult. In the meantime, prices are pushed up by wealthy people coming in from outside. Some methods exist, such as section 52 planning, but they are insufficient and we need more.
The document does not even mention the problem of homelessness. It mentions the importance of providing housing for lower and middle income households in London, but no objectives or mechanisms for ensuring this housing accessibility. Almost incredibly it says:
The need for new homes will be met by maintaining the present rates of new construction and conversion in the private sector, and the continuing buoyancy of demand.
That does not explain why, so far, the market has not provided affordable homes for large numbers. It is inadequate to see conversions as a major source of new low-cost homes. The implication is that more homes will meet housing need, but that is not true. More affordable homes would do that, but there must be a policy to provide such homes.
The presumption in the Greater London development plan, which is to be superseded by the guidance once it is finalised, against loss of housing will be eroded by a policy requiring boroughs to show that they are making reasonable provision to accommodate demand for business development if they wish to retain sites and buildings in residential use. This could be particularly devastating for central London communities in places of pressure, and in boroughs such as mine. This set of pressures—particularly those which force out affordable housing—is the most severe problem facing individuals and families, often at the most desperate end of the social


needs scale. Some of them are Londoners, but some are those who come here and cannot find anywhere cheap to live.
We need also a co-ordinated transport policy. My constituency provides a good example of this need. We are discussing whether there will be a Jubilee line extension, going from Green Park through Westminster and Waterloo to points east. We are anticipating the Channel tunnel rail link, going under the constituency. British Rail is consulting about widening the viaduct at Southwark cathedral. There is the faint possibility of an extension of the Bakerloo line. But none of these ideas is being considered in a co-ordinated way, and they are not to be integrated, for example, with the plans for the expansion of Waterloo and the siting of the second terminus for the Channel tunnel rail link at King's Cross or Stratford. There is no strategic transport planning. It is irresponsible for a capital city of a congested country such as ours not to have a strategic and integrated transport policy.
The document that we have on these matters is extremely weak. It is about time that the statements about public transport and the need for an integrated provision were made more boldly. It is these parts of the document which betray its innate weakness, and it is in these areas that the document is ambiguous, simplistic and poorly co-ordinated. There are descriptive statements of effects but not policy statements. With the advice of those who are experts, and officers and members of councils across the party divide, the document so obviously stands ready for improvement. We must seize the opportunity.
As for the integration of public transport, there is a reference in the document to the central London rail study and another to the east London rail study. That suggests that the Government thought of one study and then the next. I think that the announcement of the result of one was made during the week when it was announced that the other would be set up. The studies are interlinked, and it is not possible to plan adequately for transport in the new and developing dockland area without knowing how that will fit in with transport in the middle of the capital.
We read in paragraph 31 that the Government intend to extend the deregulation of bus services to London in the early 1990s. It is stated:
This will give London the benefits of greater competition and innovation and reduce levels of subsidy that have been achieved elsewhere in the country.
It does not say that the extension will produce further traffic congestion and greater difficulties. We often hear complaints in the House about the horrendous problems caused by coaches which bring tourists to the area and park along the Embankment or on Westminster bridge. They were parked two or three deep the other day when I came to the House. It is naive to make a supposed statement on deregulation without any analysis of the consequences.
Paragraph 34 states:
The Government also recognises that undesirable car commuting traffic will be discouraged.
Almost all car commuting traffic is undesirable. The majority of it carries one person into the capital and the same person out. Generally, the individual's car is not used from the time he arrives to the time he leaves in the evening. Properly subsidised and adequately supported public transport would reduce the number of private cars and ease the enormous congestion. The predictions of the numbers of vehicles using the roads of the capital are

horrendous. It is forecast that the number of cars owned by people living in London could increase by 22 per cent. to 34 per cent. by the year 2001, bringing the total up to 3 million. The problems are bad enough already without increasing the number of cars to that extent.
We need to be firm about green belt land and the environment generally. We must make it clear that green belt and metropolitan open land and other open land is sacrosanct and clearly stated to be so. In the statements on metropolitan open land, it is not clear to me that the borough of Southwark would not be able, consistent with the policy behind the strategic guidance, to sell off part of Burgess park—a metropolitan open land park created by the London county council and the Greater London council—for housing development for sale. Does the presumption against development of the green belt apply equally to metropolitan open land so that that would be something that the Minister would be likely to turn down? How strong is the protection? That still seems unclear and requires much more specific analysis.
Paragraph 61 deals with an enormously important and controversial matter—important views and the River Thames. It seems that the Secretary of State intends to issue further guidance on the protection of strategic views, such as those of St. Paul's and the Palace of Westminster. Soon, the planning inspector's report on Hay's Wharf, which is opposite the Tower of London and next to the southern end of Tower bridge in my constituency, will land on the Secretary of State's desk. The original design, for a building whose architecture resembled that of the Houses of Parliament, was—thank goodness—called in after a request made by myself with the support of others. Three options were then offered. In my view, none is sufficiently good to justify occupying that site again, and English Heritage agrees. In any event, clear guidance is vital if we are not to lose the character of the Thames riverline and spoil it for generations to come. The Thames and the river front are unique features of our capital and any new development there must be right.
Paragraph 63 of the draft refers to archaeology:
Local planning authorities should also take account of the desirability of preserving ancient monuments and their settings. They may wish to draw developers' attention to the Code of Practice drawn up by the British Archaeologists and Developers Liaison Group when considering developments which will affect known or presumed archaeological remains. Any conditions proposed in a planning permission for such development should be consistent with the principles laid down in DOE Circular 1/85: Use of Conditions.
That does not begin to advise Southwark or any other council as to what should be done if something like the Rose theatre is discovered. I was at the meeting of Southwark's planning committee when it was told, "You'll just have to sort it out yourselves."
The site of the Rose theatre has been scandalously treated. I visited it again this week. Because of the former Secretary of State's refusal to reschedule the Rose, not only will the new building be inadequate in its height and other dimensions, and in ways that the late Lord Olivier and others, including the Theatres Trust, warned against, but the developers—having promised to protect the site—have dumped all kinds of material and equipment on it. The Rose is the only Elizabethan theatre ever discovered, and it happens to be of national importance—but under the non-specific wording of the draft guidance, it is entitled to no greater protection. A draft as weak as that is completely unacceptable.
Other paragraphs deal with hotels, tourism development, retailing, and so on, but in most cases make bland or generalised statements. If the London planning advisory committee had submitted a bland or generalised document, I could not have criticised the Secretary of State for saying, "This is the advice I received, and I cannot be blamed for adopting it." But that is not what happened. The committee submitted substantial advice agreed by all the parties involved, on the basis of well-tried arguments refined over a considerable time, and finally presented earlier this year.
That same committee is of the view that the draft strategic guidance is still inadequate. It concludes that the priorities are the provision of homes for those on low to middle incomes; a much-expanded Underground and rail investment programme; restraints on traffic, particularly in central London, to mitigate the severe and increasing problem of mobility within the capital; adequate investment in environmental improvements and renewal of the infrastructure; and increased Government financial support in helping to plan for a better quality of life.
I make an 11th hour plea to the Minister to emphasise to his colleagues that it will do them enormous credit, and Londoners and our country enormous good, to produce the best possible guidance. This debate could be of unusual significance in the planning of London into the next century by presenting an opportunity to convert the draft into guidance of real benefit. I hope that the debate will make the Government think again and persuade them to get the guidance much more right than it is in its present form.

Mr. Clive Soley: I support much of what has been said so appropriately by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who has been involved in this matter for some time, together with me and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who cannot be here tonight.
It is appropriate that the subject for this debate follows the previous one. If the Minister has any doubt about the growing importance of the planning and land use issue, he need only run his eye over the subjects for debate tonight and he will see that at least four are directly related to planning and land use and one or two others are probably indirectly related.
The previous debate dealt with the problems experienced mainly by Conservative Members in rural areas of southern Britain. Essentially the same problems are experienced in London. The difference between the urban and rural areas is obviously significant, but the underlying problems are not different. Much of what I said in that debate could be repeated now. Those problems relate to the crisis that results from not having a proper housing policy and when the role of local authorities, particularly in terms of planning, has been largely undermined.
The Government are paying the price of abolishing the Greater London council, as are Londoners. The idea was that with the abolition of the GLC the Secretary of State would issue the strategic planning guidance. Contrary to the Government's wish, the other place insisted on a planning advisory committee being set up. Again, I join

the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey in congratulating the members of that committee. When it was set up the Government took the view that it would not be effective. It was, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, an all-party committee. Given the extraordinary difficulties of trying to produce a planning document on London from the sort of the base that it was operating on, it has done a good job. It is clear that that committee has done far more thinking, as have one or two other organisations, on the needs of London and its planning aspects than the Government have done.
The first thing that I want to do is to echo strongly the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman and the many people outside the House who are concerned about these matters that the Government should not issue the final strategic planning guidance until further consultation has taken place.
A rumour began to go round the House this morning that the Government would make a statement or publish a written answer on the issue and it took some time before it emerged that the Government were talking about issuing the final planning guidance in the next 24 hours. The rumour was an agitated one precisely because people did not know what was happening. On such important issues, where many people are worried about planning and guidance, there is a strong case for the Government undertaking not to issue the final guidance until there has been further consultation.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey pointed out that only 10 weeks were given for consultation and there were only a limited number of public statements about the matter in the press and two voluntary organisations ran conferences on it. I do not know whether the Minister has had the notes on the conference report for the Campaign for Homes in Central London, but if not, I advise him to have a look at it. He is welcome to have my copy if he so wishes.
The level of concern among those who are aware of the importance of this matter is high. Needless to say, something like strategic planning guidance in London will not grab the headlines in the national press. However, I can say categorically that unless the Government address the issue carefully London will continue to seize up in terms of transport, affordable housing, the supply of labour and the economic problems that stem from those matters.
An absurd contradiction lies at the heart of the Government's draft strategic planning guidance. It is the very contradiction to which I referred in the previous debate—their belief that if they reduce planning problems and lessen controls, the free market will somehow produce a solution. I repeat that that will not happen, and it is even less likely to happen in London because land is in inelastic supply, to use the market definition, because housing is slow to respond to changes in the market and because the existing planning and subsidy systems distort the market out of all recognition anyway. That means that we shall never have a free market.
In addition, we must consider the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who quoted the Coopers and Lybrand report, which also points out the special nature of the London housing market, and I shall return to that in a moment.
The Minister's previous boss at the Department of the Environment, now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, strongly felt that if the Government could get


local authorities off people's backs—as he would have described it—and allow free market forces to reign, that would result in a better-run society. We know that at least 100 Conservative Members believe that that argument is seriously flawed and there is reason to believe that a growing number of Conservative Back Benchers no longer believe that theory, which in my view is nonsensical.
Let us deal first with housing. As I have said a number of times, housing is in crisis in Britain and in desperate crisis in London. I do not know how any person who is born and brought up in London and who does not earn well above the national average wage can find anywhere to rent or buy. In areas such as mine, one-bedroom flats cost about £80,000. What sort of first-time buyer can afford that? Suppose that one is looking for rented accommodation in my area. When I was elected in 1979 my council had a waiting list of about 4,000 people and hardly anyone in bed and breakfasts—and then only for short periods. It now has a waiting list of 10,000 and hundreds in some form of emergency accommodation. The council is trying to reduce the amount of bed and breakfast accommodation that it uses, but nevertheless the accommodation offered remains short-term accommodation. That is true of local authorities, both Labour and Conservative, throughout London. They are in acute crisis.
There is no point in believing that the housing associations will solve the problem. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey did not deal with the statement in the Coopers and Lybrand report that the housing associations would never do anything except provide for a small section of the market. That is true. Housing associations have still not restored their building programmes to their mid-1970s level, yet they are being urged to take over council housing. If housing associations are being told to take over council housing—which does not add to the stock of housing—and at the same time to build, buy, repair and renovate, clearly they will not be able to supply the housing that is needed in London.
That leaves the private sector, and that brings us to the biggest disaster of all. The previous Secretary of State for the Environment believed strongly that if the Government allowed market rents to be charged and made it easier for landlords to gain repossession, the private market would expand. It did not; it contracted, and it continues to contract. The tragedy is that for some years now, well over half the private lets in London have been outside the terms of the rent legislation, yet still the private sector is declining and still rents are increasing. I have spelt out the reasons for that before, and I do not need to go into them tonight, except to say that is caused predominantly by the way in which we subsidise housing in Britain—by the fact that a generous subsidy goes to buying and a less than generous subsidy to renting.
Transport in London is also in crisis and that is obvious if we walk on to the streets. We have a devalued public transport system which has been run down and has suffered under-investment for many years. It is unreliable and now operates more slowly than it used to. People are also more afraid to use it, particularly late at night when they most need it.
I remember not long ago cycling beside a traffic jam in London. When we sit in traffic jams, we often feel frustrated and angry. We might even curse the other traffic. However, when I cycled beside that jam, I witnessed the enormous and dangerous absurdity of what is happening in London today. I saw hundreds of cars and

other vehicles standing still, belching out fumes and depleting the ozone layer, but there was usually only one person in each car. Everyone was getting nowhere fast. What nonsense.
If the Greater London council still existed we might have more cycle groups as there are in many other cities. We do not have the facility now to provide complete London cycle routes. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey pointed out, we do not have the facility to use the river to its best advantage. We have simply been told that the Secretary of State will take a view on the river. My worry about the previous Secretary of State taking a view of the river is that he might simply have stood at the top of Marsham street towers and gazed out over at the river wistfully, perhaps thinking of concreting it over. There is no policy to allow London and its surrounding areas to have a good transport and planning system designed to serve the community and to enable businesses to operate effectively.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey also referred to the arts and to the Rose theatre. I congratulate Southwark council and the hon. Gentleman on what they have done in that respect. I find the whole affair utterly amazing. I still have not managed to convince Conservative Members that the Rose theatre discovery was the No. 2 headline news in the United States. It was a major story in most of western Europe and in many other countries as well.
We should say to ourselves, very slowly, "The British have discovered the remains of the Rose theatre where Shakespeare acted. It was the first Elizabethan theatre of its kind." Shakespeare—a name that is known to everyone, not just to English people, who have had the good fortune to go to school. We should then pause and say very slowly, "The British are going to build an office block on top of it." No wonder the rest of the world cannot believe their ears.
In purely commercial terms there is an enormous opportunity to use the Rose theatre site simply For tourism. In commercial terms, using it for tourism would far transcend the return on 20 office blocks on the site.
There is no strategic guidance in London to deal with problems such as those with the Rose theatre. I am sure that the previous Secretary of State would have been happy to put the office block on the site whether there was a regional planning authority or not. However, it is nonsense to operate in that way.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) may be aware that when the original plans which would have put the office block's piles through the theatre's stage were designed, no planning power other than scheduling could have stopped that. Had it not been for individuals surrounding the site and negotiations in which the Government and English Heritage persuaded the developers to rethink, English Heritage and the Government would have allowed the piles to be sunk. The present planning process could not stop that happening.

Mr. Soley: That is interesting. I find the whole incident completely amazing. We will be condemned for this by future generations.
Figures that were released yesterday by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that the population of London may again be declining. The trouble


is that it is difficult to know what is happening to the population of London and the south-east. There is a case for having a careful study of the population of Britain of the type that was carried out in the 1940s. We need some idea of population movements to get our strategic planning right.
There is a tendency to move out of the cities again. That has certainly been happening for the past 30 or 40 years and it has been producing some of the problems that we associate with the inner city. Some people are trapped in the inner city and are unable to move either within the area or out of it, and other people are wealthy enough to move in and out of it, or even have two or more homes and be able to switch between them. As I said to Conservative Members in the previous debate, we are now finding some of the problems of the inner city emerging in rural areas. Villages are adopting the same pattern in which half the houses are empty for half the week and come to life again only at the weekend. We need to look at population movement. Again, in the draft guidance there is no sign that that matter has received the attention that it needs.
There is a general deterioration of the environment. Opposition Members have always argued that the Conservative philosophy of the free market economy, which, as I said in the previous debate, tends to be a short-term policy, leads to private affluence amid public squalor. We are seeing that more often in and around London. The implications for the economy are serious. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey quoted the Coopers and Lybrand report. I draw the Minister's attention to the comments of the London chamber of commerce—the people in that organisation support his party—which, in 1987, said:
The high cost of housing in London and parts of the South East deters even highly paid staff from moving South. At the other end of the scale inexpensive housing for rent does not exist. Urgent action is needed.
Because of the cost of housing, even international companies are having to offer additional money to people who are to go to London to work. That distorts the housing market in the way that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned. Houses in areas such as mine are sometimes rented for up to £1,000 a week because international companies can afford such rents. Incredible rents are being demanded. That drives out the local population and makes it a difficult area for the local community to stay in.
An important argument about London is that we have alllowed communities to splinter and become run down. One of the co-ops in Waterloo, in which the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) is involved and which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and I have visited, is a good example of an attempt to recreate a strong and vibrant community. That is happening increasingly throughout London. Again, without good strategic planning we will not be successful.
I emphasise that it is feared that the situation in London will continue to deteriorate unless the Government take planning in London seriously. They chose to abolish the GLC. I think that they were wrong, and they think that they were right. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the argument, surely there is a need for something more than the draft strategic guidance that we have at the moment. No one can seriously believe that we

can abolish a tier of government that dealt with matters such as transport, housing, and population, and studied the needs of areas as well as the economy, and replace it with the document that we have been given as draft guidance. There will be no serious sign for bodies outside the House about what the policy will be or how we put it into effect.
We need a proper planning framework and more consultation. That is why I inform the Minister that there is a desperate need to make sure that the draft strategic guidance remains a draft at the moment. I plead with him to consult more widely and take account of the growing problems of London—they are affecting his own party as dramatically as any other, so he has a political interest—that are affecting employers who say that they cannot get employees, accommodation and so on in London. All that must weigh very heavily with the Minister. If it does, I suggest that he makes it clear to the House, and to those outside who are concerned about the matter, that the Government will not go ahead with the final document until they have consulted more widely and in much more depth.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the Minister have the leave of the House to speak again? That is the case.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): The major plea from Opposition Members has been for a delay in the publication of the strategic guidance. I respond to that by making two points. First, having listened carefully to the arguments of the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I have noted a number of points that have been made already in representations and during the consultation phase on the draft strategic guidance, which urged changes from the draft to the final document. Many of the points raised this morning have been covered. When later today, in everyday parlance and tomorrow in parliamentary parlance, the strategic guidance is published, hon. Members will be pleased to see that a number of their important points have been taken into account.
Secondly, consultation on the preparation of the guidance began in 1986, and it is our view that it would be wrong to prolong that process further. The reason why we believe that is because London needs an effective up-to-date series of unitary development plans in place as soon as possible, or plans will simply not keep pace with the rapid changes taking place in London.
Opposition Members will have noted that, while I have been with this portfolio only since sunrise this morning, I have tried to maximise the number of hours available to look at the strategic guidance document against the draft and against the representations that were made, some of which I will comment on. I am satisfied that a number, not all—Opposition Members would not expect all—of their points have been covered in the extended final draft, which we intend to send to all London Members of Parliament and to place in the Library tomorrow.
The publication of the guidance marks an important stage in the introduction of the new planning arrangements in London, based on the unitary development plans which will be prepared by the boroughs. That new system of plans will replace the present two-tier


system based on the dated Greater London development plan prepared in the 1960s, and local plans prepared by the boroughs.
The guidance will provide a framework for the boroughs to prepare the well-focused and effective unitary development plans which London needs as it faces the challenges and opportunities of the 1990s.
It is important to remember what the guidance is, and what it is not. It is not intended as a comprehensive "masterplan" for London setting out policies for all planning issues in this great city. Those who still think that it is the job of Government to impose such a design will be disappointed. The Government believe that such an approach is inflexible and wrong. The future of London must be shaped, above all, by the initiative and energies of its local communities, businesses and people, not by blueprints laboriously prepared and handed down from above.
The purpose of the guidance is straightforward. It is to assist the boroughs to prepare their UDPs by setting out clearly the Secretary of State's guidance on those land use planning matters that need to be dealt with on a Londonwide basis. It also draws the planning authorities' attention to other statements of the Government's planning policies in planning policy guidance notes and circulars. It does not deal with aspects that are essentially local, because we believe that each borough is best placed to decide those matters with all relevant interests as they prepare their UDP. The guidance will be kept under review to reflect changing circumstances.

Mr. Soley: The Metropolitan police, who are a Londonwide body but are not controlled by an elected authority, are regarded as being important enough to be allocated a debate in Government time in which London Members take part. Given the way that the Minister is describing the purpose of the guidance and given that he wants local authorities to take their guidance from the Secretary of State, will he suggest to his colleagues in the Department and to the Leader of the House that a day should he set aside for a debate on the guidance that is issued annually?

Mr. Moynihan: More than anyone else, the hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a matter for me. I shall put the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House.
I stress that the guidance is concerned with matters directly relevant to the use and development of land. It concentrates on matters that the town and country planning system can sensibly and properly influence. It is a dangerous illusion to imagine that planning guidance and unitary development plans are a suitable instrument for tackling every problem that London faces. That is a recipe for discrediting the planning system. For example, the problems of skills mismatch and access to housing are important issues to which the Government are addressing a range of initiatives in training and housing policy. Planning powers can make only a limited contribution to alleviating such problems. It would be wrong for the Secretary of State in his guidance to pretend otherwise.
The objectives of the guidance, which should be reflected in UDPs, are to foster economic growth, bearing in mind the importance for the national economy of London's continuing prosperity; to contribute to revitalising the older urban areas; to facilitate the

development of transport systems which are safe, efficient and have proper respect for the environment; to maintain the vitality and character of established town centres:, to sustain and improve the amenity of residential districts; to allow for a wide range of housing provision; and to give high priority to the environment, maintain the green belt and metropolitan open land, preserve fine views, conservation areas, surrounding countryside and the natural heritage.
I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will allow me to write to him about the distinction that he made between green belt and metropolitan open land. That subject has not appeared on my desk as rapidly as it should have today, but I am sure that it will in the near future. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will write to him on that point and on any other that I am unable to answer.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister is reading from a paragraph that is no doubt entitled "objectives of the guidance." Does he now include in the final guidance a transport objective, which did not appear in the original guidance? Does he accept, as he seemed to in his introduction, that guidance that takes as its premise economic growth, but which exludes other dimensions, is imbalanced? The fundamental criticism of the guidance is that it predicates economic growth and does not acknowledge that transport and other planning must be co-ordinated so that growth is not prevented by all the other features and failures that have been identified.

Mr. Moynihan: There is no doubt that predication of economic growth is not at the heart of the final version of the guidance. Many of its aspects take into account a range of other important issues, not least transport, about which I can speak from constituency experience. The assessment studies take into account issues wider than those of borough interest. Quite rightly, they must take into account not only economic growth but other aspects of the environment. Of course I support a balanced approach to the development and planning of London.
The guidance takes into account the advice put forward by the London advisory committee on behalf of the London boroughs.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Minister say whether a transport objective is now included?

Mr. Moynihan: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been an elaboration of the transport issue, not in the form of specially defined objectives, but as additions to the draft because of representations made.
We welcomed the constructive spirit in which the advice was prepared and put forward. We were also pleased to see that in not much more than two years from the abolition of the GLC, all 33 boroughs could reach agreement on the advice. The hon. Gentleman highlighted that point. That was an important and constructive move forward and it has been taken into account.
My right hon. Friend has welcomed and given the greatest attention to the London planning advisory committee's advice in preparing his guidance. Our approaches and emphasis differ on some aspects, but there is a great deal of common ground between us and the boroughs on many matters, and that is reflected in the guidance.
We share, for instance, a common commitment to the importance of protecting the green belt and metropolitan open land, and the value of other local areas of open space and "green chains" of open land in the built-up area. The guidance gives high priority to both the natural and the built environment. It covers nature conservation, protection of buildings of special architectural and historic importance, conservation areas, preservation of ancient monuments and their settings, protection of views and the character of the River Thames.
The hon. Gentleman commented specifically about the Rose theatre. He will be interested to see that the paragraph on achitecture has been amplified.

Mr. Simon Hughes: That is a bit late.

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that no specific theatre, however considerable and important its merits—I do not dissent from the hon. Gentleman on that point—is mentioned in the document.
We have also taken account of the LPAC's advice in giving guidance on the number of additional dwellings for which each of the boroughs should make provision in their UDPs in the period up to 2001 and these figures are set out in the guidance. It is for the boroughs in the UDPs to indicate suitable locations, densities and standards of parking so that they can decide how best to accommodate the additional housing within their area without detriment to the local environment.
I have already touched on the question of access to housing. The Government recognise the importance of providing housing for lower and middle-income households in London. The main way we are achieving this is through housing policies to encourage forms of low-cost home ownership and the provision of rented accommodation by the independent sector. Last year we also carried out a consultancy study to examine the potential for major housing development, including low-cost housing of five large underused sites in east London. We are keeping in close touch with the local authorities and landowners concerned to ensure that these sites come forward for development.
Planning can also play a part. Planning conditions cannot normally be used to impose restrictions on tenure or occupancy and we do not support, therefore, policies which aim to impose such conditions. They would be unenforceable and likely to lead only to unproductive wrangling between local planning authorities and potential developers. But the planning system can help by ensuring that there is an adequate and continuing supply of land for new housing, and that UDP policies on densities and conversions take account of the demand for smaller units.
The continuing prosperity of London as one of the world's foremost business and financial centres is vital for the national economy and employment. That is why it is essential to provide a favourable climate for business investment and development, while taking careful account of the effects on the local environment and transport. The regeneration of docklands has shown that a positive, flexible and realistic approach to new business development is essential in order to revive rundown areas of inner

and east London. Much progress has been made under this Government in returning prosperity to these areas. Many further opportunities will arise in the next few years with the Government's massive programme of road improvements and proposed rail investment in east London, and the release of large sites previously required by public utilities and services.
The guidance devotes considerable attention to transport and land use matters. It explains the Government's broad strategic approach and current initiatives to improve transport conditions in London and relieve congestion, and sets out committed public transport and trunk road investment which the boroughs will need to take into account in preparing their UDPs.
London's transport systems have come under increasing pressure in recent years. I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the impact of that on London. To a large extent, it is the result of the growth of prosperity and economic activity which inevitably brings with it increasing traffic movement. The Government are firmly committed to improving London's transport systems in order to sustain economic growth and development and increase travellers' comforts and the comforts of local residents who are affected. The guidance describes current action being undertaken to achieve this and the proposals for further investment. Taken together, these measures represent the most ambitious package of transport improvements in London for decades.
The Government's main aim now—and I believe that it is shared by the boroughs—is to implement successfully and quickly the new system based on the unitary development plans. It is important to achieve a good coverage of UDPs in London as soon as possible within the framework provided by strategic guidance. The Secretary of State has made a commencement order for 28 of the 33 planning authorities in London to begin work on their UDPs. This will take effect from 11 August. The remaining boroughs will be included in a further commencement order at about the end of the year.
Many boroughs have already started preliminary work on their UDPs and I look for them to make rapid progress, reaching deposit stage within two years, or considerably sooner in some cases where there is already a good, up-to-date local plan. The UDPs will provide an up-to-date framework for development control, which should contribute to quicker decisions on planning applications. By providing greater certainty about the intentions of planning authorities, they can assist developers and public services in considering future investment and the allocation of resources. The process of plan preparation also enables members of the public and local voluntary groups and business to participate in decisions affecting the future of their areas.
The Government believe that London has achieved and maintained its greatness by its ability to adapt to change and take advantage of new opportunities, while respecting and conserving the environment and use inheritance from the past. The role of the land use planning process is to facilitate development while protecting the local environment. That is the keynote of the Secretary of State's guidance, which should be reflected in the new UDPs. I urge the boroughs and their local communities to grasp the opportunity provided by the new arrangements to prepare truly effective plans to take London into the next decade.

Orders of the Day — Abortion Act 1967

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: At the end of a parliamentary Session which has seen the pro-life movement inside and outside Parliament at its most active, it is appropriate that we should debate the administration of the Abortion Act 1967, although some of us would have preferred the debate to take place at a more civilised time.
I am grateful to the Minister for being with us at this late hour and I welcome the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who applied for similar debates.
During the passage of the Abortion Act in 1967, the then hon. Member for Maidstone was reprimanded by Mr. Deputy Speaker for reading a newspaper in the Chamber. He defended himself by saying that he was briefing himself for taking part in the debate. I have a feeling that the present hon. Member for Maidstone will need no such aid tonight, and I look forward to hearing her contribution.
When the Abortion Act was passed in 1967 it was claimed that it would be the answer to many problems, and few could be found to oppose it. Indeed, only 29 hon. Members voted against it on Second Reading. It was said at that time that the Act would reduce the rate of illegitimacy. Now, over 21 years later, it is running at 15 per cent. and rising. We were assured in 1967 that the Act would mean that every child would be a wanted child. Today, every time we pick up a newspaper we read of yet more cases of sexual or physical child abuse. In 1967 women were assured that the Abortion Act would make them free. Today, there is a dramatic increase in requests for post-abortion counselling, so damaged are many women by the abortions that they have had.
Far from solving society's ills, easier abortion has resulted in more problems and I believe that many people are coming to accept that no problem is so big or serious that only the death of a helpless, unborn child will solve it. The right to life is the most basic of all human rights and we in the pro-life movement will continue to speak up for the small, naked, nameless and voiceless being which is the unborn child.
This morning I wish to concentrate my remarks not on the major victims of abortion—the mother and child—but on those who are victims of discrimination because they wish to have nothing to do with abortion.
Section 4 of the Abortion Act 1967 provides that except where it is necessary to save life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman,
no person shall be under any duty … to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection.
That conscience clause protects all those who are expected to play a part in the team effort leading to an abortion once the decision to perform an abortion has been reached. It therefore protects doctors, nurses, pharmacists, ancillary staff and clerical workers who play a necessary part in carrying out an abortion.
Those with conscientious objections to abortion are protected in the following ways. Staff may not be asked to make appointments for patients to have abortions. Nurses or paramedics may not be asked to help undress a patient admitted to hospital to have an abortion; and they may not be required to prepare the patient for the operation.

Operating theatre staff may not be required to prepare the theatre or sterilise instruments for abortion. If a theatre is used exclusively or almost exclusively for abortions, a conscientious objector may not be required to take part in the work of swabbing down either before or after an operating session; neither shall he or she be required to clean instruments or tubes used in abortion procedures.
Unfortunately, however, there are many different ways in which the present conscience clause of the Abortion Act does not work effectively. Management can indicate that promotion prospects will be damaged if medical personnel do not take part in abortions. Candidates for interview for medical appointments will not be successful in some cases unless they agree in advance that they will take part in abortions. Peer group pressure—the burden falling upon other overworked medical personnel—can persuade individuals to become involved in abortions about which they are unhappy. Ancillary workers, such as medical secretaries, may be dismissed if they refuse to become involved. Unless an individual has been informed of his or her rights to object to becoming involved in abortions, when confronted with a problem, that person is unlikely to know how to opt out. For all those reasons and for many more, it is clear that the conscience clause does not work in practice and that it should be reviewed.
The case of the Carlisle baby is an example of the fear under which some doctors and nurses work. I need hardly remind the House that the case involved a baby who was aborted at 21 weeks and survived for almost four hours. Through the protests of nurses, who appealed to the local Catholic chaplain, the case came to light. However, they were terrified of losing their jobs. I stress that the young doctor who was called to see the baby when it continued to struggle to breathe was opposed to the Abortion Act and had refused to become involved in performing abortions. The gynaecologist who was responsible for the abortion had gone off duty and when he was asked to return, he refused.
Thus, nurses who disliked the operation and a conscientious young man who had opted not to carry out abortions were left to cope with the results of somebody else's work. Apart from the baby's horrifying death, the Carlisle case epitomises the total ineffectiveness of the conscience clause. Nurses who were too frightened to opt out became involved in abortions on their wards. When there was an inquiry, they were too frightened to speak up for fear of losing their jobs. A young doctor was made to appear the villain of the piece and left to cope with the remains of someone else's botched-up piece of butchery.
I was recently told of a matron who said at a meeting:
The Conscience clause works in theory … but it most certainly does not work in practice. I have to run a hospital and I cater for shifts, holidays, staff illness, ensuring that patients are looked after throughout their treatment.
Obviously this is bound to create problems and it is hardly surprising that in some hospitals—although not all—nurses are made to feel that by opting out they are creating problems or being anti-social.
In others the pressures go further than that. Perhaps one of the most extreme cases about which I have been told is that involving a young African nurse who, on being appointed a staff nurse at a London hospital, made it absolutely clear that she was opposed to abortion and that she would take part in abortion operations only to save the mother's life. For a year she was left in peace. However, she began working at nights and her duties involved her


with patients in the hospital who were having abortions. At night, the number of staff was limited and the technique most commonly used in this hospital, which carried out private abortions, was to insert at some time during the night, prostaglandin pessaries in the vagina to soften the cervix before surgical intervention. The nurse refused to insert such a pessary.
At first, one senior, presume taking advantage of the fact that the nurse was foreign, told her that she could be charged for refusing to obey the law. Far from cowering, I am delighted to say, this outraged the young woman, and she made it clear that she would go to prison rather than become involved in an abortion. Her senior then became rather more devious, bringing all manner of pressure to bear on her, and picking on her work. Finally, in a great attempt to be persuasive and reasonable, the senior urged the nurse that she was not asking her to do anything unreasonable, and that all she had to do was to put the prostaglandin pessary on the patient's bedside table, instructing her how to insert it. The nurse was told that that would not involve her in an abortion and was the least required of her under the law.
At that point, the nurse, who was an evangelical Christian, went to her church minister, who put her in touch with the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which sent her a solicitor's letter and guaranteed all her legal fees if the hospital persisted in its conduct. The girl sent the letter to the hospital authorities and was left in peace.
How many other young women have similar experiences but are not put in touch with people who can counsel them? The case involving Trent regional health authority came to light as a result of the work of CARE and the SPUC, but I wonder what would have happened if they had not learnt what was going on.
The Lane report referred to complaints that chances of promotion in the disciplines of obstetrics and gynaecology may be lost by those with a conscientious objection to the termination of pregnancy, but believed that it was probable that that affected only those departments where there were few staff or where the workload was heavy. Complaints and allegations of discrimination have been received, especially about fully qualified doctors who are debarred from appointments. Nurses are also affected, and their general position is difficult.
The Lane report said that, in the National Health Service, the Abortion Act 1967 has brought unhappiness to hospital nurses. The Royal College of Nursing has said that some nurses are reluctant to exercise their right to contract out under section 4 because to do so would create problems for their colleagues.
I shall let some of those who have suffered speak for themselves by reading out their letters. The first says:
Dear Sir,
I shall be most grateful if you will give me some advice re: abortion for I am having problems at work.
The position is that I am a midwife working on the labour ward at a large London hospital. We do a lot of scans, for we have an excellent scan department, so patients are referred from all over the country. Also they do fetoscopies on patients not only referred from around the country but from abroad. Many of our patients are found to have abnormal foetuses more so than from a normal catchment area, so this causes problems, for although many of the referrals go back to their home area for abortions, lots are aborted here (for they want the foetus for research purposes).

Three years ago when I applied for the post in London I made my position regarding abortions clear—that is that I would not wish to be involved in abortions at all. The then senior midwife assured me that this was not a problem for they rarely did abortions. However, while this was true three years ago, it certainly is not the case now.
The senior midwife has changed three times since then and at present we have no direct person in charge on labour ward so all the sisters have a share of power. As far as I can see they all agree with abortions, and while some don't like them being done on labour ward, none can accept my objections to caring for these patients.
So at least once a week there is trouble and I find myself having to argue my point. This has happened before, the pattern seems to recur every few months. I have up to this been reluctant to go to the chief nursing officer for I know what will happen: I will simply be moved off labour ward. Also I know it will not go well in my records, and seeking references in the future is a consideration.
I do feel very unhappy about this, apart from religious views, on an emotional level I find it difficult to cope and would find it absolutely impossible to give advice and support to a woman having an abortion while I feel so strongly that it is wrong. Just before Christmas they aborted an abnormal foetus, but at delivery it was perfect, it nearly broke my heart. The Abortion Act 1967 does have a conscience clause, but no one pays attention to it. I asked the student nurses about the position on the 'gynaecology' ward where all the social abortions are done. They said they are not allowed to opt out. If they were Catholics then they could object and would not be sent to the gynaecology ward at all, so missing this experience, but also making themselves unpopular.
A doctor whom I asked about this issue … said they fare even worse than midwives, for they are all but told if you don't want to do abortions don't bother coming into obs and gynaecology.
I should be interested to hear your view and would appreciate any advice you can offer.
A second letter said:
I work in an operating theatre in a London hospital as a trainee O.D.A. We work as scrubbed assistants to assist the surgeon and also as anaesthetic assistants.
We have operations for women when they have had a miscarriage and they are called E.R.P.C. (evacuation of retained products at conception). However, it has come to my attention that some of these are actually 'clean-ups' after hormonally induced abortions. There is no way they indicate these women have been having a miscarriage as the result of a dose of hormones.
I feel extremely compassionate for women who have had a genuine miscarriage, but I am worried and upset about those miscarriages that aren't really miscarriages. At work I was told that any miscarriage is a miscarriage, and that since it isn't an abortion they have not got to tell us that it is a hormonally induced miscarriage and that I have no right to refuse them. I want your point of view on this.
A third letter sent to the SPUC said:
I am employed as a staff nurse at my local hospital to work in the general operating department. Occasionally I am put down on the duty rota to assist in the day care theatre during the gynaecological lists which often include as many as ten abortions. I have stated my objection to assisting in abortions to the senior sister who will only assure me that I would not have to be the instrument (or scrub) nurse. However she does expect me to be present in the theatre to assist setting up the theatre, tying gowns, opening packs and clearing away, believing that this role cannot be described as 'being involved'. On Wednesday 16th September I attended a meeting at Bideford parish church where a speaker from S.P.U.C. showed us your video on abortion. Since then I feel very strongly that I must make a committed stand against the abortions taking place in my hospital and … have absolutely nothing to do with them.
Before I go and see the senior sister again I would appreciate your advice on how far I can take the clause in the 1967 abortion act in making a conscientious objection to assisting in abortion. Can I refuse to be present in the theatre during an abortion?


The letters that I have read out give some indication of the problems faced by many members of the medical profession since the 1967 Act came into force. Clearly we are putting an unfair burden on the consciences of many people. Some can be helped—as they have been—by pro-life organisations like the SPUC and its conscience code, but many others are unaware of their rights and afraid to exercise them.
Others—as in the case of Mrs. Barbara Janaway—do not appear to have rights under the Act. Mrs. Janaway, a medical receptionist, was dismissed after refusing to type abortion documents, and it was held that she was not entitled to the protection of the "conscientious objection" clause because she was not participating in a termination of pregnancy in the meaning of the Act.
Earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon introduced the Abortion (Right of Conscience) (Amendment) Bill, while I introduced a similar Bill to cover ancillary workers. The Bills were based on a simple principle: doctors, nurses and ancillary workers should not be expected or required to be involved in any way in the performing of abortions unless they had first made it clear that they had no conscientious objections to being so involved.
This reverses the current impractical position in which doctors and nurses are required to take part in abortions unless they declare that they have conscientious objections to such involvement. The Bill took the sensible approach of requiring those involved to opt in rather than to opt out of abortion. The Bill's purpose was to prevent medical and ancillary personnel from being cajoled or pressurised into taking part in abortions when they did not wish to do so. That suggestion has merit and would help to resolve what is undoubtedly worrying many medical staff. I hope that if a similar Bill is introduced next year the Government will look favourably on it.

Mr. David Amess: Despite the late hour, I welcome the opportunity that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) has given the House to debate the administration of the Abortion Act 1967. I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn and for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) for the magnificent job that they have done in the past year to make sure that the fundamental issue of abortion is raised in the House on every conceivable opportunity so that it does not move far from the minds of hon. Members.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health for the courtesy that he has shown in responding to all our debates and in providing us quickly with the information that we have sought. Our hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) has a close interest in these matters and I am pleased to see him here for the debate. It would be extremely churlish of me not to mention the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), because, although we fundamentally disagree with her view on the subject, at least she recognises the great importance of the matter and is here to take part in the debate.
I hope that when the Minister responds he will tell us about the Government's intentions on the Warnock report. I note that only this week his Department issued a strict new code of practice governing the use of the foetus and foetal material in treatment and research. I trust that

he will take this opportunity to enlarge on the issue. Perhaps he will also give some detail about how the Government intend to handle the Warnock report.
Will there be an opportunity to vote on the time at which an abortion can be obtained? I hope that every party in the House will allow a free vote on the time limit. It would be conceived nationally as an outrage if any political party imposed a Whip on that issue. There is little point in being a Member of Parliament if the House cannot meet and decide that protection is needed in respect of the time at which life begins. A recent newspaper story carried the headline:
Tiny Thomas wins brave battle for life".
The story says:
Tiny Thomas Johnson shouldn't even have been born until the end of next month.
But already he is 10 weeks old and doing very nicely, thank you.
Doctors even refused to speculate on his chances of surviving after he was born 16 weeks premature and weighing just 11b 15oz in May.
`They just said we would have to take it hour by hour, day by day,' said proud mum Christine Johnson of Wood Street, Elton, Bury.
That is what we are debating. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn spoke about the Bill that I sought to introduce on the conscience clause, but I shall direct my remarks to the financial involvement of private clinics. I am proud to be a Conservative. I have no trouble dealing with the profit motive that we enjoy in this country. However, I am outraged that anyone should make a profit out of the abortion industry. When Abortion Act was being debated in 1967, a press conference was held by pro-life gynaecologists, and it attracted much abuse because one of the doctors described what was then the Abortion Bill as a
licence to print money for the shady end of the medical profession.
Doctors pleading for the law to be passed immediately protested that money was the last thing to be included on their agenda. They simply wanted to help poor women in need of support. Yet, when the law came into effect, in the words of Sir John Peel, at that time the Queen's gynaecologist as well as president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists,
they all removed themselves from the back streets to the front streets".
Once there, they increased their fees and the number of patients beyond belief.
It was hardly surprising that within only a few months, London became known as the abortion capital of the world—and once the United States Supreme Court had made its famous and disastrous decision to allow abortion on demand up to birth, we saw London reduced to the abortion capital of Europe. I need hardly say that abortionists made a large amount of money as a result of the passage of the Act.
However, life was not as easy as the abortionist believed that it would be. As we know, doctors and clinics cannot advertise. Thus, in order to reach the public, they needed some way in which to promote their service. Without the ability to advertise, they were held back. Then somebody had the brilliant idea of opening an agency, called the Pregnancy Advisory Service. There was no law to stop it from advertising. In turn, it would refer the girls who responded to its posters on stations, in tubes, at bus stops and in newspapers to the abortionists and, overnight, a considerable amount of money was made.
Such is the way of the media that these agencies were presented as some kind of guardian angels, looking after the well-being of girls in need. In fact, they were abortion referral agencies that got round the existing law and touted for clients through advertising. Shortly after they first came into being, two of them succeeded in getting themselves registered as charities. I would not suggest that they have broken any charity laws, but I would add that whereas most of us think of charities as made up of people acting from love, there is little doubt that doctors and others in the service of charitable pregnancy advisory services have been provided with incomes from their labours.
In the case of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service—for example—its total income in the year 1986 was £4,383,000. Of that, £2,176,000 went on staff salaries and wages and a further £750,000 went on medical and doctors' fees—meaning that about 67 per cent. went on salaries and fees. In comparison, only £536,000–12 per cent.—was spent on medical and other supplies. Even more surprising—considering that we are talking about a charity—is the fact that the minute sum of £32,000 was given in grants to "indigent patients" and a further £51,000 was "written off" in loans to patients. In other words this charity gave only 1·9 per cent. of its income to patients in comparison with over 66 per cent. in payments to doctors, nurses and others.
Over the years many of us have had cause to become increasingly worried about the quality of the counselling that is given to girls through the so-called pregnancy advisory services. Is the advice given more to the benefit of the doctors and others than to the girls?
Bernadette Thompson, to name one girl, runs British Victims of Abortion. It is an organisation which helps women who are experiencing trauma. Bernadette had an abortion about 16 years ago through the services of a pregnancy advisory counsellor, and a charitable pregnancy advisory service at that, but she would say that she received no counselling. She was merely referred for an abortion, an operation which she has regretted ever since. There are many thousands of women suffering as Bernadette Thompson did.
About six weeks ago there was an article about Bernadette and her experience and the work of British Victims of Abortion in the women's magazine Bella. Within one week Bernadette received over 150 calls from women asking for help, and some of them had been grieving for a number of years. She is still receiving calls. This shows the sort of feeling that there must be throughout the country among women who have gone through similar experiences and have since regretted it. Many of the women had been aborted through so-called charities and they did not want to return to them for support and help during their grieving.
There are many who do not agree with me on the principle of abortion. I know that the hon. Member for Barking is one of them. I make no secret of my opposition to the killing of unborn children, which is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). Yet when he introduced the Abortion (Financial Benefit) Bill, he was amazed by the amount of support he received. The aim of the Bill was to hit directly at profiteers in the private sector. It aimed to sever the

links between abortion agencies and private clinics, and called on medical practitioners referring women for abortion to make a declaration that they had no financial interest in the place where the abortions were performed and derived no benefit from it.
As most hon. Members will be aware, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists opposed any amendment to the Abortion Act 1967 yet even the college wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield:
We have seen in the press that you intend to introduce a Private Members' Bill to implement the recommendations of the 1976 Select Committee on abortion, so that there should be no financial links between doctors and agencies who refer women for abortions, and the institutions in which abortions are carried out.
We at the Royal College would like to support the spirit in what you are trying to achieve, as we think that this, after all, is only right and proper.
Among the groups who were threatened by the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield was a company. I am loth to use parliamentary privilege on this occasion and so I shall call the company Miss Y. It advertised its pregnancy advisory services. Clients—not patients—were referred to a hospital by a Mr. X, who was not a medical doctor. He was a business man who ran a private clinic.
The matter becomes much more worrying when we realise that Miss Y, who runs the agency, is none other than Mr. X's wife. Not surprisingly, they have become extremely wealthy. Their business covers abortions and cosmetic surgery, as a result of which they were exposed on the "That's Life" programme in January 1985. That programme revealed that medical services offered in connection with cosmetic surgery through certain advisory agencies had led to tragic results. The same programme also exposed other abortionists. It apparently takes a certain kind of mentality to exploit unhappiness, whether it be caused by an unplanned pregnancy or dissatisfaction with one's appearance.
Mr. X responded to that broadcast by threatening to sue the BBC—a tactic he apparently uses to silence anyone who attacks his methods. When a newspaper announced Mr. X's intention to open a hospital to perform abortions, he threatened legal action against a group that leafleted the area in an attempt to arouse public opposition to his plans. He claimed that the newspaper story was incorrect, but seemed to make no attempt to have a correction published.
Late in 1987, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield was informed that eight referral agencies had financial links with clinics providing abortions. The number rose to 32 when he asked about individuals who were directors or trustees both of companies or charities providing abortions and counselling and of clinics offering abortions.
There is no doubt that immense fortunes are made from abortion clinics. The answer to a parliamentary question tabled at the end of 1987 revealed that a total of 594 beds in private clinics were licensed for abortions, and that 114,621 abortions were performed that year. That meant that each bed was used an average of 193 times a year.
At that time, the cost of a private abortion, including the referral agency's charges, was, at a conservative estimate, £200—thus producing an income of £38,592 per licensed bed. The total turnover realised from that barbaric industry reached £22,923,648 annually. As a Conservative, I am absolutely ashamed at the profit that is made from destroying lives. Returning to Mr. X, the income of the private nursing home of which he is a


director, and which is provided with clients by his wife, totalled £810,600. That is not a bad income from a clinic with only 21 beds.
Earlier I spoke of a "barbaric industry." When the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) introduced his Bill, a video showing a D and E abortion was introduced to this country. In the earliest stages of abortion, a technique known as D and C—dilation and curettage—is used, whereby the mouth of the womb is dilated and a curette is used to scrape the inside, in the process of which the foetus is cut to pieces.
After about the 12th week of pregnancy, a curette is not sufficiently strong enough to tear apart the bone structure and limbs of the unborn baby, so the instruments used are decidedly stronger. They are rather like those used in carpentry and other forms of building work. A different title is given to that technique. It is known as dilation and extraction. That sounds harmless enough, but the video "Eclipse of Reason" proved otherwise, and showed precisely what an abortion of that type involves.
One aspect of pro-abortionists that worries me most is the way that they distort the truth, while pro-lifers are told by politicians of all shades of opinion that dilation and extraction is not a form of abortion that is performed in Britain. The pro-abortionists plant newspaper stories claiming that pro-lifers arouse public feeling in an emotive fashion, with stories of outdated abortion techniques not used in this country.
The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys monitors show that those claims are untrue. Far from D and E being used less, it is on the increase, particularly in private clinics. There are several reasons for that. It can be upsetting for nurses, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn referred, caring for a patient having an abortion by the use of prostaglandin to see a whole baby emerge when the abortion takes place. In contrast, D and E ensures that nothing but mangled pieces, often crushed and battered beyond recognition, emerges.
A second reason is that the D and E takes far less time than a prostaglandin abortion. When money has to be made and the whole procedure has to be completed as speedily and efficiently as possible, why not use the technique which takes the least amount of time?
I was sickened when I met a doctor who had just visited a private abortion clinic in London which specialises in late abortions. There the pieces torn from the baby were so large that huge pieces of arm and leg of spine were put through one of those large mincing machines that we see in butchers' shops to enable them to pass through the sluice.
I conclude with the latest figures. In 1987 in the private sector 12,222 abortions were carried out at 13 weeks or more and of those 3,698—nearly one third—were carried out by D and E. Those tiny humans, whom we know feel pain, are being destroyed for money. That is the kind of barbarity which I and my hon. Friends are determined to stop.
I shall never cease to be amazed at the manner in which some of those involved in the abortion industry seek to deceive themselves. The chairman of the trustees of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service wrote to doctors saying that abortion does not typically require them to diagnose and treat a morbid condition, but rather to consider the wishes, wonders and worries of normal people in normal health.
Is that really the way in which they bemuse themselves when they tear a child limb from limb, having to put the larger pieces through a mincing machine in order to get them down the sluice?
I and my hon. Friends who have spoken tonight are appalled by that, and the British nation will join us in our abhorrence.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on securing a debate for which several hon. Members applied, because it is an issue, which has dominated the last two parliamentary years. Frequently, attempts to resolve some of the worries that have been voiced tonight have been defeated, not because a body of opinion in the House resented what was being done but because we were not allowed to have a free and fair vote.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm our hope that when the Warnock proposals come up For discussion next year we can have a free and fair vote on issues other than those strictly raised in the Warnock report.
The debate is on the Abortion Act 1967, which is administered far more in the breach than in the observance. In particular, there are several areas of concern where specific questions can be asked which I hope that my hon. Friend will answer.
In the first case, I am concerned about the administration of the Act and the way in which it takes on board the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. In an Adjournment debate on 8 June, my hon. Friend the Minister accepted that it was necessary to observe the Infant Life (Preservation) Act in the administration of the 1967 Act. In response to a point that I made in that debate, which was principally about the Carlisle baby, he said:
Doctors are properly mindful of the requirements of the Act and do not carry out an abortion, by any method, when they consider that a child is capable of being born alive."—[Official Report, 8 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 465.]
My question to the Minister is this: if they do not carry out abortions when they consider that a child is capable of being born alive, what is the purpose of the injection of urea or saline, which is commonly used in the prostaglandin treatment to ensure that the child is born dead? What is the point of ensuring that a child is born dead if the doctor does not believe that it is capable of being born alive in the first place? The Act is not administered to take account of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act.
We now know that children are capable of surviving independently from the 24th week. Yet in a parliamentary answer the Minister told us that last year there were 17 cases of abortions after the 24th week, six of which were not even for handicap or to save the life of the mother; they were done under the social clauses. Will the Minister explain how he can reconcile the statement that doctors do not abort children capable of being born alive with the fact that they abort children of a gestational age in excess of that at which children do survive, and at which such survivals are fully documented?
In the light of the recent spate of survivals at 22 weeks, how can doctors abort after that age and seriously believe that the child is not capable of being born alive? In the


Carlisle baby case, in which the abortion took place at 21 weeks, the child was not just capable of being born alive; she was actually born alive.
Will the Minister consider outlawing completely the D and E method? There is no good reason for dismembering alive in the womb, without anaesthetic, a child which in different circumstances would be in an incubator, loved and cherished, with everyone desperately fighting for his or her survival. Can the Minister imagine circumstances in which a child in an incubator could be dismembered alive? Can he imagine a National Health Service or a Ministry that was responsible for licensing private clinics allowing that? If it cannot be done to a child in an incubator, why should he allow it to be done to a child in the womb? It is not just a question of medical or clinical judgment—the panacea behind which so many of these issues disappear. It is not down to clinical judgment whether we dismember alive babies in the womb. It is a clear moral issue for society. There is an optional method. I do not particularly like that either, but at least it does not involve cruelty. That is the prostaglandin method.
Will the Minister bring into general conformity with the rest of operations abortions involving children under the age of 16? If a child needs its tonsils out, it must have parental consent for the general anaesthetic that will be applied. Yet in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), the Minister said that young girls under the age of 16 do not require their parents' consent to have an abortion performed under general anaesthetic. Why is abortion singled out for exemption? Why is a child not allowed to decide to have her tonsils out when she is allowed to decide to kill an unborn child—at an age when she cannot possibly have a concept of the consequences and of all the moral issues involved, for which, surely, she requires parental guidance?
Then there is the question of the unperson, to use an Orwellian phrase. When I asked the Minister about the case of the Carlisle baby, and asked why the child was allowed to stay for three hours, breathing, with a pulse rate, fully alive—so much so that the nurses saw fit to baptise her—he replied that resuscitation equipment was not provided, and she was not registered for birth, and she was not registered for death, all for the same reason: the doctor in the case had decided that it was not a live birth.
If a living, breathing human being can survive for three hours, how can a doctor say that that is not a live birth and that none of the rights of life follows? If a small premature baby as a result of a normal premature birth is alive, then a small premature baby as a result of an abortion is alive. The Abortion Act 1967 is not administered fairly or equitably. Anything goes when it comes to an abortion. There is no way that a child born normally could be declared a non-person.
There is also the nonsense of piecemeal legislation for the foetus at all stages of development. The Warnock report proposes experiments up to 14 days. In the same breath, the Polkinghorne report states that foetal tissue may be used in the second trimester, which is from the 12th to the 24th week. Those two reports are not taken in conjunction with the Abortion Act 1967 and considered comprehensively. They are being taken piecemeal.
When it discusses Warnock the House will probably be deceived into believing that nothing will happen after the

14th day. But Polkinghorne states that experiments can occur at horrendously late stages. Will the Minister admit that we need one comprehensive Abortion Bill which reviews the working of the Abortion Act 1967, considers the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and the financial administration—a matter raised so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess)—examines the workings of the conscience clause, and considers foetal tissue and embryology research. One Bill should do all that to clarify those issues and sort them out once and for all. We do not need a long series of attempts to amend each and every working of the gross Abortion Act 1967.
Is the Minister convinced that the Abortion Act 1967, in its own terms, is adhered to? The Carlisle baby was aborted under the terms of a clause which states that if there is a substantial risk, not just some sort of risk, of serious—and not any old sort—of handicap, that is grounds for an abortion. The Carlisle baby had a 50 per cent. chance of inheriting a very rare disease of which her father had only a mild form. Where does a substantial risk of serious handicap occur there? Will the Minister admit that abortions have been carried out for club foot, hare lips and all sorts of minor handicaps? The Abortion Act 1967 is not even policed properly in its own terms and there is no will to police it. Does the Minister believe that new advice should be issued, if not a comprehensive inquiry launched, into how well the 1967 Act is implemented even in its own terms and even before we have seen the abuses that result from it?
To sum up, I put these questions to the Minister. How can he equate the use of injections to kill a child with a statement that doctors would not abort where they thought that there was a possibility of a child being born alive? Will he consider outlawing the D and E operation altogether? Will he re-examine the requirements for permission for anaesthetics for young girls under 16? In what circumstances is a child declared a non-person when it has existed? We know that the Carlisle case caused horror, but there are probably other cases where children are born and live for only a very brief time. Are they also regarded as non-live births? Will he investigate the financial regulation of private abortion clinics and consider issuing advice on the interpretation of "substantial risk"? Will he overhaul the policing of the Abortion Act 1967 and will he consider the case for comprehensive, rather than piecemeal, reform?

Ms. Jo Richardson: Hon. Members have heard, as I rather suspected that we would, three highly contentious speeches in yet another debate designed to undermine the Abortion Act 1967. As usual, the speeches have been laced with many smears and much lurid language. I remind the House that there have been 14 Commons attempts by anti-abortion people to try to change the Abortion Act 1967, and two Lords Bills on the subject. All 16 attempts were introduced over the past 20 years. I have not been involved in all of them, but I have been involved in a good many—I am not an unfeeling person, contrary to what some hon. Members might think—and I have watched carefully and I have heard the same arguments, and I am not at all convinced that there is any need to do more than improve the Abortion Act 1967 by going a little further.
I have added up the time that has been spent over the past few years on debating abortion Bills and private Members' Bills and added on the time spent on private Members' motions about private Members' Bills on abortion, and ten-minute Bills and Adjournment debates. Parliament has spent more than 350 hours on the issue. Those 350 hours could have been more practically spent.
Attacks on the Act have been mounted from every quarter. The three hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have referred to a number of Bills that have been proposed during this Session. If my memory is correct, six Bills—they will not get anywhere now—have been put forward by Conservative Members. Over the years, particularly in the past two years, as the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) said, there has been a concentration on this issue. Not a trick or an opportunity has been missed by those who, if they were honest with the House and with the public, would like to see abortion outlawed altogether.

Miss Widdecombe: I have never denied it.

Ms. Richardson: I am glad to hear the hon. Lady say that. She does not deny it.

Miss Widdecombe: I have never denied it.

Ms. Richardson: I know that she has never denied it, but several people in her camp say that they are not against abortion in certain circumstances. I applaud the hon. Lady for being honest enough to say out loud, albeit from a sedentary position——

Miss Widdecombe: I am happy to rise and say that I have never denied it.

Ms. Richardson: The hon. Lady has stood up to say that she is anti-abortion. When hon. Members read the debate, they should take note of that.
While all those attempts have been going on, I have been at pains to point out to the House that public opinion has been going in a counter direction. The 1988 Marplan poll asked a sample of 1,552 people in 103 constituents
Do you think that women should have the right to choose an abortion in the first few months of pregnancy?
Eighty per cent. of the women and men who were polled agreed that they should. Eighty one per cent. of women were in favour. When the sample was analysed, it was found that 86 per cent. of those who said that they were Church of England were in favour, and, surprisingly, 67 per cent. of Roman Catholics were also in favour. The fifth report on British social attitudes in 1988 showed that 54 per cent. of men and 54 per cent. of women supported the idea that only the woman should decide whether to have a child.
Although no one likes the idea of abortion—contrary to what has been said here this morning—the sample shows that a substantial majority of the population believes that it is the woman who is important. I have been quite taken back during the debate by the lack of reference to the women who have to make agonising decisions and who do not like having an abortion, but who have one for various reasons which are personal to them, either medical or social. When we say "social", we mean things that are connected with their personal lives and their families. The public obviously recognise that those women are the ones who are important and who should make the choice.
A relatively small group of hon. Members, who are against abortion, have been trying to convince the House

that women should have no say at all, and that public opinion should be treated with contempt, in favour of their narrow and, in my opinion, cruel, moral judgment. So far, thank goodness, they have been unsuccessful.
The hon. Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Maidstone have both asked the Minister directly—I, too, will be interested in his reply—whether the forthcoming Bill on embryo research and other matters that appeared in the Warnock report will contain some opportunity for the House to make a decision on abortion. My personal view is that I hope very much that that Bill will not contain any reference to abortion. As I understand it, the Government are proposing to give the House an option of voting for or against pre-embryo research, which is probably the right way to deal with it. However, to mix the whole argument up with abortion would be wrong and would, in fact, obscure many of the other parts of Warnock that need to be fully explored and fully debated. I hope that the Minister will resist any blandishments to include a clause on abortion.
The hon. Member for Basildon really went over the top when he talked about the millions that are being made, as he alleges, out of abortion clinics. I do not know very much about the commercial sector, but I know quite a lot about the charitable sector. I am a trustee of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, and I have seen or heard nothing of which I could be ashamed. I invite the hon. Gentleman to come along to see for himself. If he is talking about the commercial sector, which existed long before the 1967 Act came in, that is a different matter, and one which he must take up with the Minister and on which the Department of Health must decide. I am sure that the Minister will be able to confirm, however, that everything is all right in the charitable sector.
I shall give as an example some figures that I obtained only this afternoon, when I knew that I would be participating in the debate, and which I have had confirmed by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which is one of the biggest charitable organisations. The BPAS carries out one third of all the National Health Service abortions. Sixty eight per cent. of BPAS's total income is spent on fees and salaries, and 77 per cent. of the total NHS expenditure on abortion is spent on fees and salaries. The BPAS is not, therefore, paying out lavish money.
The average cost of a BPAS abortion, at 1989 prices, is less than £190, including overheads. The cost of a National Health Service abortion, at 1988 prices, is £190, excluding overheads. The BPAS cannot, therefore, be charging exorbitant fees. National Heath Service hospitals using BPAS services are, therefore, not wasting public money but saving it.
I wish that the hon. Member for Basildon and other Conservative Members would stop making allegations about the charitable sector. I do not deny that it pays wages, because people must be paid for their work and expertise. However, they are not millionaires and they are not trying to make profits in the dreadful way that the hon. Member for Basildon suggested. All BPAS counsellors and general practitioners are paid on a sessional basis. They therefore see however many patients turn up at a session, which includes contraception, infertility advice, pregnancy testing, and counselling on matters other than abortion, as well as abortion counselling and referral.
The consultant who performs the operation has no link with patients until they visit the clinic. There are therefore


no incentives, links or profiteering. There is no Department of Health information to uphold claims of abuse of misuse. If claims of abuse or misuse had been made, the Department would have withdrawn the rights of the pregnancy advisory service or the BPAS to act.
Several references were made to the Carlisle baby. Of course everyone was shocked by what they heard, but I was shocked by the lack of concern shown throughout the saga for the mother. Much as been said of the baby, who was allegedly born alive and who breathed for a while before dying, which we regret. I also have feelings for the mother, who had her name, medical records and life history dragged through the courts, but for what? Why should she have been so castigated? Why should she have had to open up her life in that way?

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: The mother took the case to court.

Ms. Richardson: She took the case to court after a priest broke a confidence.

Mr. Hargreaves: No.

Ms. Richardson: Yes. Her personal life and medical records were dragged through the public domain.
I wish that Conservative Members, in their concern for premature babies—we are all concerned about premature babies—would think of the mother and the father.

Miss Widdecombe: We do.

Ms. Richardson: If Conservative Members do, they certainly do not mention it. Time and again, Conservative Members drag up the case of the Carlisle baby, but it will not further influence the public.
I know that the Minister wants to ask all the questions asked by the hon. Member for Maidstone, so I shall make one or two final points. The anti-abortion Lobby fails to face up to the fact that the Abortion Act 1967 was woman-centred legislation. It was enacted because before that women felt forced to go to back streets for abortions.
The force of the Abortion Act 1967 was to protect and support women. There is nothing wrong with that. We should now take it a step further and introduce earlier abortions for women who want them. At present they are alowed only in exceptional circumstances. Early abortions will be possible only if we amend the legislation to provide for self-referral up to 12 or 14 weeks.
We must ensure that NHS facilities are evenly spread throughout the country. Incidentally, that would deal with the arguments about the charitable sector. Women in the west midlands—an area which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, represent—have much more difficulty in getting an abortion than women in the north-east or south-west. Wealthy women always have and always will be able to get an abortion, even if the anti-abortionists succeed in repealing the Act, which I hope they do not, but ordinary women face great difficulties.
We are moving into the 1990s. Women are being exhorted to train for new technologies, to plan their lives, to enter new industries and fill the gaps in the employment market. How can they do that if restrictions on abortions make it even more difficult for them to plan their family properly? Family planning is being cut. I hope that Conservative Members do not approve of that. I certainly

do not. How can women control their bodies if this male-dominated House makes it more difficult for them to plan their lives and keep their family happy?
Only this evening I was talking to a member of staff who told me that when many years ago a local friend of her mother's who had 13 children became pregnant for the 14th time and when she tried to abort the child herself, she died. I do not want those days to return. I want women to be confident that they are not being patronised and that the legislation supports and gives them as much information and as many facilities as possible, and then allows them to make choices about their life, family, partners and children. That is the way to approach this thorny subject. None of us likes abortions or wants people who do not want them to have one. We should improve the 1967 Act to give women the choice.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on his success in the ballot and on introducing yet another debate on this extremely important subject. I also pay tribute to the eloquent contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) and to the contribution by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson).
These are important issues and, from my point of view, any hour of the day or night is appropriate to debate them. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone asked a number of questions. Although I shall, in the time available to me, answer as many as I can, I hope that she will permit me to write to her in due course so that I may answer them more carefully and comprehensively.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon drew attention to those who were present in the Chamber at this early hour, and he was charitable in referring to me, for which I thank him, and to others, including the Whip who was on the Bench at the time. It should be noted that one of the new members of the Whips' Office is now on duty. We congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) on his appointment and hope to welcome him to many more debates at these early hours.
On the Order Paper earlier in the day was a motion to wish the Serjeant at Arms well for the future. I am sure that hon. Members who are present now and were not in their places earlier will wish to be associated with those good wishes. It must be unusual for a distinguished servant of the House to be thanked and then to have to remain in the Chamber for the succeeding 24 hours. In regard to this debate he and I perform the same duties. We are servants of the House. My job as Minister is to make sure that the Act with which we are concerned is administered properly and to provide information and statistics to the House, but not to make moral judgments or take any initiative in relation to an extension or contraction of the Act. Therefore, I see my role as being to answer questions of fact and to assist in the deliberations of the House.
This subject has featured often in our deliberations. The hon. Member for Barking said that in the present Session, for example, the House had debated on 16 December a motion on the rights of the unborn child, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts), and that six private Members' Bills on abortion-related subjects have been introduced, including the Abortion


(Amendment) Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. There have been two Adjournment debates, one introduced by my hon. Friend who initiated tonight's debate, on the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, and the other on 8 June on the Carlisle baby case initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. In addition, 112 parliamentary questions on abortion topics have been addressed either to the Department of Health or to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, for which I have ministerial responsibility.
There has been reference tonight to the prospect of legislation on the issues dealt with in the Warnock report which the Government have said will be introduced during the lifetime of this Parliament. There has been considerable media speculation in recent weeks about its content and timing. Hon. Members will understand that I cannot go beyond restating that commitment to bring forward a Bill.
It would not be right for me to comment on the contents of the legislation and in particular on whether, as some hon. Members have suggested, it should contain provisions about abortion. I shall, as I have done in the past, draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the comments that have been made.
In 1967 Parliament was given the opportunity in a private Member's Bill to build on an existing framework of criminal law which prevented abortions except in a very restrictive set of circumstances. Parliament agreed to do so on a free vote. It is, of course, open to Parliament to alter that framework. I realise that many hon. Members feel sincerely that the law needs radical adjustment. It is against that wide divergence of views that the Government must operate. We also have the views of the Select Committee in another place, which has suggested a framework for amending the abortion law. Clearly, the Government must take account of all those factors, and of what has been said in this debate, in looking at the legislative position. That we shall carefully do.
This debate focuses mainly on the administration of the Abortion Act 1967. As the House knows, my Department takes seriously its task of monitoring the operation of the Act, which was introduced as a private Member's Bill and was passed by both Houses on the basis of a free vote. The Act allows abortion where two doctors certify in good faith the the risk to the life, or injury to the physical or mental health, of the pregnant woman or the existing children of her family would be greater if the pregnancy continued than if it were terminated.
As Parliament has decided that abortions may lawfully be carried out in the circumstances set out in the Act, the Government, like their predecessors, consider that facilities for abortion treatment should be available. The Government also have a duty to ensure that the provisions of the Act are properly applied until and unless Parliament chooses to change that law.
Within the National Health Service the level of gynaecological provision, including abortion, is, like any other provision, decided by individual health authorities. The Government believe that such decisions are best taken locally in the light of authorities' first-hand knowledge of local needs and priorities and competing claims on resources. The private sector adds to the range of options available offering flexibility to both patients and health authorities. It is for health authorities to decide the extent

of any arrangements made for treating NHS patients in the private sector. In 1988 some 9,000 abortions were performed under such arrangements.
The operation of the Act is monitored closely by my Department, through its control of the private abortion sector and the investigation of specific complaints. All operating medical practitioners are required to notify the chief medical officer of each abortion that they perform. The notification form contains many details, including the grounds for abortion, the estimated gestation and the method of operation. Those forms are scrutinised by staff authorised by the chief medical officer to ensure that they do not indicate any contravention of the abortion law.
It might be helpful to my hon. Friends and to the House if I were to say something at this point about the way in which the operation of the Abortion Act is monitored in the private sector. Before we approve a clinic or private hospital for the termination of pregnancy under section 1(3) of the 1967 Act, the premises and facilities are inspected by the Department's medical and nursing officers, and persons connected with the application are interviewed by investigating officers. An important element in the process of approval, and subsequent monitoring, is the system of "assurances"—instituted in the early 1970s after some abuse of the original arrangements had become apparent. The assurances are specific undertakings which proprietors of "approved places" are required to give to the Secretary of State on the conduct of their premises and the facilities available. In effect, the assurances form a set of conditions on which initial approval depends and contravention of which could lead to the withdrawal of approval, thus preventing any more abortions from being carried out at that place unless approval is reinstated.
All private sector nursing homes, clinics and private hospitals approved under the Abortion Act are subject to periodic, unannounced inspections by the Department's medical, nursing and investigative officers. A thorough check of business and administrative arrangements is made and patients' notes and medical records are examined. Any irregularities are followed up and the appropriate action taken to obtain future compliance by the proprietors. In an extreme case this could involve the withdrawal of the Secretary of State's approval or, where there is evidence that a criminal offence may have been committed, a reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The machinery that I have described does not reveal any abuse of the Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone asked me to comment specifically on that.
The Carlisle baby case was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. This case was the subject of the Adjournment debate on 8 June during which I addressed as fully as possible, and as far as the requirements of confidentiality and possible legal action allowed, the issues that gave rise to the concerns expressed by hon. Members. My hon. Friend asks again why no attempt was made to resuscitate the baby. As I told the House on 8 June, the doctor concerned made a clinical judgment that this was not a live birth.

Miss Widdecombe: The Minister says that the doctor decided that it was not a live birth. The question that I asked in this debate was how can one accept, when a child has been breathing without the aid of artificial equipment,


has a pulse rate and has survived for three hours, that that was not a live birth? Under what circumstances do we call a person an unperson?

Mr. Freeman: I am about to deal with that point. The decision was properly, and entirely, for the doctor, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it. It was a clinical judgment. I shall deal shortly with the circumstances surrounding it. If he had decided that resuscitation should have been attempted, the appropriate action would have been taken.
How doctors decide whether a baby has been born alive is a question that should be asked of obstetricians and paediatricians. My understanding is that a doctor's main criterion of a live birth before 28 weeks of pregnancy is that, when born, the baby starts to breathe properly. In these circumstances a heartbeat will, of course, be present, but a beating heart on its own would not be regarded as sufficient to label the delivery a live birth since delivered foetuses of 16 weeks or even less may have beating hearts although they have no prospect whatever of surviving. I am making no moral or ethical judgment.
Deciding that a live birth has occurred is only one step towards reaching a decision on the appropriate subsequent management. Very few live born babies of less than 28 weeks continue to survive without a great deal of intensive care. Even if they do survive, there is a significantly increased risk of their developing substantial handicaps. The doctor responsible for the care of the mother and the baby has to weigh all the relevant considerations and use his or her knowledge and clinical judgment to decide what action is appropriate and in the best interests of the mother and baby in the circumstances of each case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone asked me how a doctor could avoid the possibility of a live birth through the application of medical techniques or injections. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon asked how doctors can use techniques such as dilation and evacuation. I am making no moral judgment, but these are matters for clinical judgment. It is not right for the Minister or any politician to make judgments about what are essentially clinical matters. I appreciate that my hon. Friends have strong views on this subject. All of us have strong views, but these are matters for clinical judgment.
The conscience clause has been mentioned. Section 4 of the Abortion Act 1967 provides that
no person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection".
Under a longstanding agreement with the medical profession, no reference to termination duties should be included in the advertisement of hospital posts, but it should be included in the job description made available personally to all applicants. This procedure ensures that all practitioners, including those who, for whatever reason, do not wish to undertake such duties, are made aware of

the requirements of the post before interview. National guidance about this was sent to regional health authorities in 1975 and 1979 by the former chief medical officer. In view of a recent error on the part of Trent regional health authority over the wording of an advertisement for a consultant post in obstetrics and gynaecology, the chief medical officer will remind regional medical officers of the existing guidance.
For non-medical staff, in a recent ruling in the House of Lords—R v. Salford health authority—Lord Keith of Kinkel stated that, in its ordinary and neutral meaning, the word "participate" in section 4 of the Abortion Act referred to taking part in treatment.
I am of course aware that my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn and for Basildon have introduced Bills proposing amendments to the conscience clause. They fall to be considered by the House in accordance with the procedures governing private Members' legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn spoke eloquently about the difficulties experienced by hospital staff who have a religious or ethical objection to abortion. Everyone can sympathise with someone who experiences pressure to take part in a form of treatment to which he has a conscientious objection. Any such pressures could take a number of forms, but it is very difficult, if not impossible—I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree—to legislate to encourage the development of appropriate attitudes. What is clear is that the law explicitly protects those who have conscientious objections to taking part in abortion treatment. The law is crystal clear on this subject, and we expect both the letter and the spirit to he observed. I am sure that the hon. Member for Barking will join me in that.
Let me conclude by dealing with the issue of financial links. Since the passing of the Abortion Act 1967, several attempts have been made to introduce legislation relating to the links between doctors and agencies who refer women for termination of pregnancy and the institutions in which they are performed. These have led to the existing requirements that all nursing homes must notify the Secretary of State of any financial arrangements between the nursing home and any medical practitioner, pregnancy advice bureau or referral agency, and must report any changes in existing financial arrangements. Furthermore, all pregnancy advice bureaux referring women for abortion at places approved under the Act must identify financial links with other businesses, and doctors must not operate on patients whom they see at a referral agency.
Those requirements are drawn to the attention of administrators of premises when the first visit of inspection is made. Checks continue to be made on subsequent visits, and company searches are carried out as necessary. Proprietors and administrators are well aware that failure to comply with an assurance could constitute grounds for withdrawal of registration of bureaux or approval of nursing homes.
I hope that this has been a useful debate, and that it has increased understanding of a very important issue.

Orders of the Day — BAT Group (Bid)

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I wish to speak on the unwelcome bid by Hoylake Investments for BAT Industries. Before I begin, let me stress that I have no vested interest in either BAT Industries or the Transport and General Workers Union, of which I am not a member and to which I shall probably refer.
At £13 billion, this is the biggest takeover bid ever seen in this country—and among the biggest anywhere in the world. Outside the utilities and the oil industry, BAT is Britain's largest industrial company. Many of my constituents and those of many other hon. Members are employed by it. It contributes much to our local economies. British companies in the group include Argos, Wiggins Teape, Eagle Star, Allied Dunbar and British American Tobacco. It is acknowledged to be a world-class business with a leadership position in many key markets. Worldwide it employs more than 300,000 people in 19 countries; in the United Kingdom it employs 32,000 in about 250 constituencies. BAT has invested £668 million in fixed assets in the United Kingdom over the past eight years.
I believe that Hoylake is a consortium specially formed for the purpose of taking over BAT Industries. It consists of Sir James Goldsmith, Jacob Rothschild and Kerry Packer—the Australian gentleman in the stocking mask. There are some minor players as well, including GEC, Agnelli and some foreign banks intended to provide credibility.
Goldsmith is known for many aspects of his life. Among his sayings is, "Takeovers may be interpreted by some corporate raiders as being for the public good, but that is not why I do it. I do it to make money."
The idea is that instead of offering £13 billion in cash, which it does not have, the company should borrow more than £12 billion, pay off the loan by selling components of the company and then be left with the tobacco company for nothing. That would be highly damaging to the strength and success of such companies as Argos, the catalogue retailer, which operates in my constituency.
At the end of last year Argos had more than 220 stores nationwide. It is one of the biggest employers in the retail sector, with about 10,000 employees. It has in Castleford a distribution centre which was opened in 1984 with an initial work force of 52. In June this year, its work force on the site was 270 permanent staff and it provides temporary employment for a further 200 people at seasonal peaks.
The total investment by Argos in its Castleford distribution centre is £9·4 million. It plans to continue its investment, not only in that region but in the north in general and has plans to extend the number of Argos outlets to more than 600. The House will see that we are hopeful about the further increase in the number of jobs that Argos will provide in hard-hit areas, such as my constituency, with limited employment opportunities.
The House will be aware that I have frequently spoken about the problems that my constituents face as a result of the rundown of the mining industry. We have suffered severely and are still suffering, and it appears from the intention of British Coal to reduce in this financial year the

number employed in the industry by 20,000 men, that those problems will continue. My constituency cannot afford to lose any more jobs.
Castleford may not be the first place that hon. Members would think of for a model of the fictional Gotham city, but we share with that city the belief that BATman has been good for us. We do not want any jokers or penguins to come along and spoil it. That would happen if the bid is allowed to go through, because many specific benefits result from BAT's ownership of Argos. It has access to expertise and technologies within the BAT group in areas such as information systems and training development. With BAT Industries behind it, Argos was able more easily to buy leases in places where it was not regarded as a prime tenant. That credibility gives a certain access to high-profile brands. Argos's ownership removes cash restraints enabling more rapid expansion and reinvestment than could be achieved independently or under new ownership concerned with paying back the purchase price before reinvesting. Under BAT Industries, Argos can continue to engage in long-term planning rather than having to concentrate on short-term gains.
As well as its contribution to Castleford, Argos brings much to the national economy in four main areas—jobs, investment, orders and shopping. The number of people employed by Argos alone averages 10,000 and rises to 16,500 to cope with seasonal demands. It is planning a £200 million expansion programme to treble its number of outlets and in 1989 it spent £25 million on shop fitting. It also plays a part in developing retail technology. Most goods are bought from British firms or United Kingdom subsidiaries of overseas firms. Approximately 40 per cent. of goods sold by it are made in the United Kingdom, allowing suppliers to invest in new technology, capacity and personnel.
The expansion of Argos is helped by its being part of BAT Industries and that has increased consumer choice for 45 million customers and increased retail competition. Significant investment in quality control and production safety ensures the supply of safe products.
I have put the Argos case as I know it and as I have had it explained to me. The Hoylake bid is bad because it is uncertain that a future owner of Argos would sustain the company's excellent progress and allow it to continue to generate record profits, expand and create even more jobs. The benefits gained from being part of BAT Industries would be lost, and there is no certainty that the new owners would provide the existing level of commitment to the growth of Argos. Highly leveraged bids put constranits on a company to produce short-term profits, often to the detriment of long-term growth. Without investment, it becomes harder for a company to compete in the market place or to develop new retail opportunities, which leads to reduced consumer choice and less retail competition.
I am no financier, but one does not have to be a big-shot financier to see that such backing and investment will not be available if the Hoylake bid succeeds. If it is successful, BAT will be financed not by shareholders' funds, but by what are called junk bonds. These are unsecured IOUs that offer much higher interest rates in return for accepting much higher risks. They were invented and developed in the United States, where investors were persuaded that the higher returns—often 3 or 4 per cent. higher—compensate for lack of security.
More than two thirds of the money raised in junk bonds was to be used to finance leveraged bonds. The term


leverage refers to the debt level necessary for raising funds. The bonds were originally intended to allow managements to buy their companies from divesting owners, but the leverage technique is increasingly being used to allow predators to acquire huge corporate assets on borrowed money.
Such acquisitions depend on substituting debt for equity. The acquirers buy the organisation, using junk bond funding to pay off the original shareholders. The junk bond holders require their high level of interest, and the bonds are due to be repaid in full at the end of the agreed term. In this way, the company's gearing or ratio of debt to equity is raised significantly. Servicing the debt becomes the paramount corporate objective, to the exclusion of longer-term concerns. Investment, research and development, training, employment and capital expenditure—all are subordinated to the need to bring in as much cash as possible.
Time, talent and resources are devoted to the short-term aim of squeezing assets to the limit so as to produce enough profits to meet the high interest charges. If sufficient profits are not forthcoming, assets have to be sold to cover the payments. All notions of corporate responsibility and investment for the long term frequently disappear. Average gearing rates would rise from 15 per cent. to more than 50 per cent., making companies more vulnerable in an economic downturn.
The United Kingdom has so far escaped the effects of large-scale leveraged buy-outs. The Hoylake bid for BAT Industries, involving a 14:1 debt equity ratio is greater by a factor of 15 than anything seen before in Europe. If it is successful, it will lead to the breaking up of a major British company and old-fashioned asset stripping on a scale never seen before. It will be the sale of the century of major British businesses with considerable worldwide interests operating on a global scale.
BAT does a good job for us in the United States. It is one of the largest United Kingdom companies in America, having built a business over the past 60 years worth$7 billion—from a $50,000 investment and all from retained earnings. The work of six decades would be gone within months. The new owners of these businesses will have to borrow money to buy them, and then they, too, will need to service debts before they are able to invest in capital equipment, staff training and development and research and development. The bid has important implications also for British industry as a whole and for companies in every constituency. It could open the floodgate for similar bids in Britain on the same scale as that which has been experienced in America, where about 10 per cent. of the capital value of publicly owned quoted companies has disappeared. The so-called retirement of equity could lead to the early retirement of many British workers.
Research that has been conducted on the United Kingdom plc computer model of the stockbrokers Hoare Govett suggests that half of the top-ranking alpha securities on the London stock exchange could be threatened. It is forecast that 32 major British companies could be subject to a leveraged takeover by 1993.
I do not know what the implications of that would be for the economy. I do not know what would ensue if large firms were to disappear from the stock market as a result of being asset stripped, but I do know what it would mean

for leading employers in my constituency. I can guess that it would be bound to have a serious consequence for London's position as a leading global stock market. There could be repercussions for pension funds and other investing institutions. Where are pension funds, including my union, going to invest their money if major blue-chip equities have gone to the financiers' knackers yard? If junk bonds are raised abroad, will the interest add still further to the balance of payments deficit? What will be the loss of remitted overseas earnings?
I do not know the answer to many of these questions. I suspect that many hon. Members pretend to know them but in reality do not have the foggiest idea either. I believe, however, that these matters are of fundamental importance to British business, to jobs and the economy as a whole.
Enough basic questions about the long-term effects on the capital structure of the corporate sector and the effect on growth and further jobs have been raised for us to commission a major inquiry of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to allow us to determine what fears are justified.
I have mentioned the interest of the Transport and General Workers Union, which has set out its case to me by letter. It has supported the opposition to the bid. I shall quote two paragraphs from its letter of 19 July, which was sent to me by Mr. Peter Smith, a district secretary. He wrote:
The bidding group has openly announced that if the bid is successful they will dissect and asset strip all divisions other than tobacco, hence the fear and apprehension of the TGWU members involved (over 150 persons). It seems that the takeover bid will consider nothing other than the thirst to make a quick profit with scant regard for employees and their families.
I would personally wish to point out that the TGWU has developed an excellent working relationship and has found the company neither remote nor insensitive to the desires and aspirations of their employees.
That is a reference to Argos. The letter continues:
Indeed, over a 3–4 year period, the Union has made real improvements both financially and socially in terms and conditions of employment.
The Castleford Depot alone has in a relatively short period of time expanded and doubled the number of employees. Nationally the picture is reflected with new distribution centres at Welwyn Garden City and Bridgwater.
With all that in mind, I urge right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to support my request to the Government to refer the bid to the commission before it is too late. By the time that the House returns from the recess in the autumn, BATman may have gone and the joker could be moving in on the major employers in the constituencies of a number of right hon. and hon. Members. I ask the Minister to refer the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) who is to make his maiden ministerial speech in this debate. Among the prophets of modern free enterprise capitalism, my hon. Friend has an honoured role to play. I count him second only to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in this House, and only just behind Sir James Goldsmith, as the person who has most popularised the concept of free enterprise in its modern form, which has done so much to transform the British economy.
I congratulate also the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) on his success in securing the debate, even at this hour. The hon. Gentleman spoke eloquently of his constituency interests and of his fears for the jobs of his constituents. I hope that I shall be able to reassure him.
I begin my speech, as did the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford, by declaring that I have no financial interest of any kind in any of the companies that are the subject of the bid or involved in making it. I stand to gain in no sense, except that we all stand to gain from companies being well run and the jobs of their employees being made more secure as a consequence. In that sense, the country as a whole benefits.
The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford is entitled to express his concern, but he speaks before the full facts are disclosed and analysed. Neither the offer document nor BAT's response has yet been published. Together, they should provide the detailed information on which we can all base our opinions. It is appropriate to wait until their publication in August before rushing to premature judgment. Otherwise, the debate will be based on popular emotion and bias rather than objective views.
The burden of the hon. Gentleman's remarks was the possibility that the demerger of a conglomerate such as BAT could create unemployment. I draw attention to the irony of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford rushing to the defence of a multinational conglomerate based on tobacco products, when such a company normally occupies a secure place in the Labour party's chamber of horrors of international capitalism. Nevertheless, I gather that the hon. Gentleman considers that BAT is an exception to the rule.
It has not been suggested that transferring the ownership of BAT's various subsidiaries would result in any closures. Certainly that is not the intention of the prospective bidders. The facts disclosed in due course will prove or disprove the suggestion that companies within BAT are poorly run—which is the case made by Sir James Goldsmith and his partners.
BAT is a disparate group of companies engaged in totally unconnected activities, ranging from tobacco and insurance companies to department stores and papermaking. The essence of the bidder's case is that the companies are underperforming and that their performance would be greatly enhanced by restoring their independence or joining them with others that can offer the appropriate and different skills needed in each of the industries concerned.
The demerger is aimed at making the subsidiaries much more secure and at protecting the jobs of those who work in them. The companies' prosperity would be enhanced, so their productivity and number of employees would increase. There would be increased investment in research and capital equipment, leading to higher profitability. If the case is made for all that, the suggestion that jobs are in jeopardy would be proved false. The opposite would be the case. Hoylake is, in a sense, trying to privatise within the private sector.
The objective is to liberate those subsidiaries from the control of the conglomerate. If there is a demerger it will be possible for those who run the companies locally to participate in management buy-outs and for the employees to acquire a real share in the enterprises in which they work. One of the beneficent aspects of the Government's

period of office is that we have made it possible, not only within the public sector but within the private sector, for the benefits of capitalism to trickle down in that way.
BAT is often described as being a major British industrial company. The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford made it clear that it is not a British industrial company in anything other than a very minor way. Its industrial activities in the United Kingdom account for only 9 per cent. of its assets and 8 per cent. of its profits. It is basically a holding company of foreign subsidiaries. Most of its industrial activities are overseas.
Therefore, the restructuring of BAT would result in a major return to this country of capital previously invested overseas which, when repaid to shareholders, would contribute to the continued industrial development of the United Kingdom. There is a great opportunity here for the repatriation of capital to Britain, something which I thought that the Labour party was in favour of.
It has been stated that the offer being made for BAT would result in the creation of an ongoing highly geared or heavily borrowed company, weighed down by debt to such a degree that it could render its future fragile.
The hon. Gentleman spoke with some feeling about the way in which the offer will be financed, saying that it would be financed by junk bonds. There is a significant difference between the proposal for financing this bid and junk bond-based bids. What is proposed here is not the issue of a bond to be financed out of future speculative profits, which is what a true junk bond is, but a bond which is to be financed by demergers and selling off the assets which are presently underperforming and so are undervalued.
The figures that are available for anybody to see in published reports show that if Hoylake succeeds in its bid it will not create a highly geared or heavily borrowed company. In fact, it will be a less highly geared or heavily borrowed company than BAT is at the moment. The debt that will be incurred will be repaid within a year from the proceeds of the announced disposal of those businesses that have nothing whatever to do with the traditional core business of BAT.
It can be seen from the reports available from City analysts that the resultant company would be classically financed, with substantial capital and a normal level of ongoing debt. Claims that a highly indebted and therefore endangered company would result from the transaction are false and seem designed to appeal to emotion rather than to reason.
Whatever the merits or demerits of the proposed offer for BAT, there can clearly be no element of restraint of competition. Therefore, there is no case for a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That view seems to be shared by almost every commentator in all the quality newspapers with one exception.

Mr. Lofthouse: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that only this week the CBI recommended that the bid should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Mr. Hamilton: That may be a point in my favour in view of the CBI's history in recent years.
If the hon. Gentleman has been reading the Library's newspaper cuttings on the bid he will know that the overwhelming majority of financial and economic commentators have come to the conclusion that there is no case on the basis of competition, which is the basis of the Government's policy for references, for a reference to the


Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Newspapers as diverse as the Financial Times, the Evening Standard and The Sunday Times have agreed that the bid is not an appropriate case for referral. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree with that.
My last point relates to the insurance companies that BAT owns, which are different from its industrial and trading companies because there is the question of trusteeship. It is natural, therefore, that some concerns should have been voiced in respect of those subsidiaries. The interests of the insurance companies' policyholders will be unaffected. The bidding company, Hoylake, is committed to dispose of the insurance companies, not to interfere in the management during the process of the disposal, not to increase the payments of dividends and to seek advice from the existing management in establishing the appropriate future for the companies. Hoylake has stated that it has no interest in maintaining a shareholding in the insurance companies and that there can, therefore, be no legitimate concerns about the interests of policyholders and other insurance clients.
The nub of the case for what Hoylake seeks to do is this: the shareholders of BAT should decide whether the offer should succeed or fail. That decision should not be made by Governments or by politicians such as the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford and myself, who have little locus standi in this matter. The basis of our free enterprise society is that is it shareholders, and not politicians or management, who have the right and responsibility to determine the basic issues affecting their company. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to let the market be the test of the bid. In due course the shareholders will be able to judge between the case for Hoylake and the case for BAT and we can leave the future of the company and its employees safely in their hands.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on making his maiden outing today as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs. I have an interest in the fact that he has been elevated so early in his life in this place because I have occasionally been mistaken for him. Perhaps I shall continue to bathe in the reflected glory of his meteoric advance.
I thank the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) for affording us the opportunity to debate this important matter. I understand the concerns that he has expressed on behalf of his constituents. I hope that we can reassure him that his constituents stand to gain, rather than lose, from the proposals on the table. I, too, find it amusing to see the hon. Gentleman leaping to the defence of an international conglomerate which has, as he said, invested heavily in the United States. Perhaps, after he has heard all the arguments he might join us; then we should see the repatriation of funds to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lofthouse: My main concern is jobs in my constituency.

Mr. Howarth: I have never doubted the hon. Gentleman's purpose in bringing the matter before the House, and I am sure that his constituents will be very grateful.
A number of major British companies might look askance at the claims being made by BAT for its ranking in the league table. British Aerospace, which I know reasonably well, has an enormous number of employees—far more than BAT has in the United Kingdom.
I have no financial or constituency interest in the matter. My only interest is that I regard myself as a friend of Sir James Goldsmith, who has made a significant contribution to the industrial and commercial world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton mentioned the acquisition by BAT last year of the Farmers insurance company in the United States. It was a hard-fought takeover battle, as they often are. During that struggle, Farmers attempted to establish that BAT was not fit and proper to own a United States insurance company. Much of that argument concerned the potential conflict of interest between selling tobacco on the one hand and providing health insurance on the other. In a number of states, the insurance commissioners decided that BAT was not fit and proper. Then, BAT added a very large sum to the price that it was offering for Farmers, and Farmers' management accepted the higher offer. Almost immediately, the insurance commissioners reversed their original verdict thereby demonstrating the ability of management, if it so desires, to convince insurance commissioners. That is important, because BAT is seeking to use the United States insurance commissioners as a means to thwart the offer by Hoylake.
This is how it works: in the United Kingdom, the Takeover Panel, which regulates all takeover offers, has set a timetable that governs all such transactions. That timetable determines that the maximum time normally available between the initial offer and the end of the offer is 60 days. If a method can be found to make it impossible for an offer to be completed within the 60 days, the offer will lapse and will not be renewable for 12 months. Therefore, shareholders would have been denied their right to vote.
It seems to many people that that is the purpose of BAT's strategy in using the United States insurance commissioners to delay their approval by more than 60 days. For their part, the United States insurance commissioners have a wholly legitimate responsibility to assess Hoylake, should Hoylake intend to own Farmers or to run it for an interim period. To satisfy the commissioners, Hoylake made it clear that it would form a special trusteeship which would hold the interests in Farmers.
The trustees, who would be leading figures from the insurance industry unconnected with Hoylake, would control Farmers. Their task would be to identify a buyer suitable to the United States regulatory authorities to be responsible for the management of the company during the interim and to distribute dividends no higher than the historic pattern established by Farmers as an independent company.
Despite those assurances, BAT's management has attempted to provoke the insurance commissioners to initiate a process that would take more than the 60 days permissible by the United Kingdom Takeover Panel. It is important that the BAT management should fight the matter on its merits and put it to the vote of the


shareholders. It should not seek to use what many—certainly I—would regard as an underhand tactic simply to frustrate the due process established by Parliament in the United Kingdom to allow shareholders to reach their verdict. That is an unsavoury aspect of this takeover battle. I accept that all takeovers are a hard and cut-and-thrust business.
As I was leaving the House in the middle of the night, I saw a report on the news tapes that BAT has employed the services of a firm of private detectives called Kroll International. Presumably that has been done at the expense of BAT shareholders. Why have private detectives been employed? Are they to be sent round to bug Sir James Goldsmith, Mr. Packer or Mr. Rothschild? Will they put devices in their cars? That sounds like the sort of thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) might write about.
I understand that Kroll uses the consultancy services of a British journalist called Michael Gillard who works on The Observer and is responsible for the "City Slicker" column in Private Eye—which some of us have known rather more intimately.
In 1979, Mr. Gillard brought an action against Sir James Goldsmith, the chairman of Hoylake, who had described Mr. Gillard as a blackmailer. The case was held before a jury and, after a lengthy hearing of the events, the jury concluded that Sir James Goldsmith was justified in describing Mr. Gillard as a blackmailer. The jury's verdict was unanimous and the verdict was upheld on appeal to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Lords. The case was widely reported at the time and could not have escaped public attention. I am sure that all hon. Members today will be familiar with what happened.

Mr. Lofthouse: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that while all this intrigue is going on among the high financiers, some people want nothing more than to earn an honest living and have a job to go to?

Mr. Howarth: I am well aware of that. I am trying to point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is not Sir James Goldsmith and Hoylake who are employing private detectives. The top management of the company that the hon. Gentleman is trying to defend have employed that international firm of private detectives.
Last week another article appeared in the "City Slicker" column in connection with the Hoylake offer. It was distributed on behalf of BAT to the insurance commissioners to stimulate sufficient doubts in their minds to provoke a delay which might take longer than 60 days to resolve and which would thereby thwart the Hoylake hid and deny the shareholders their right to vote. One must ask oneself whether that is the proper action of a major British public company seeking to protect the national interest or whether it is designed to protect the position of the current senior management of the company.
It will be evident to most objective people that this is not a frivolous bid but one that many serious commentators view favourably. It is not an asset-stripping exercise, as the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford said, but a proposal to the shareholders of BAT for the better management of their assets and the improved performance of the company's constituent parts. That could be in the best interests of the company's employees and the hon. Gentleman's constituents as much as it will be for the benefit of the shareholders. It would be wrong to

take any action to deny the shareholders the right to consider and vote on the proposal which, as has been said, is likely to be put to the shareholders early next month.
That is real company democracy. It is not employing private detectives to put bugging devices all over the place, to seek to poison the minds of the insurance commissioners in the United States and to engage in a ploy that is simply delaying tactics to deny shareholders here the right to consider the matter. As the Financial Times concluded on 18 January, on the evidence so far available, it should be left to the shareholders to decide.

Mr. John Garrett: Like other hon. Members, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) for raising what could become a major issue of industrial policy. Like everybody else, I have no financial interest in BAT, and certainly not in Hoylake, although there is an Argos outlet in my constituency.
Of course, like every other speaker in the debate, I welcome the Minister's debut on this issue. It is a pity that he could not have opened to a larger house, but Opposition Members look forward to hearing the views of a prophet of the free enterprise economy. No doubt he can enlighten us on the latest thinking in the world of prophets on this important development in industrial policy.
This case is likely to run and run, if only because of the delays that are becoming apparent from activities in the United States state courts. It is likely to become a landmark case in takeover history. Not only is the proposed £13 billion bid by Hoylake for BAT Industries the largest takeover bid that we have seen in this country, but it has clearly important implications for takeover and merger and, in this case, demerger policy. Therefore, Opposition Members would welcome the Government's preliminary thoughts on the issue. We have heard the free enterprise argument for leaving the bid without the intervention of the Government.
As The Sunday Times quoted on 16 July, in an article headed "Takeover mania",
No British public company—no matter how large—is now safe from corporate raiders … we are in the grip of takeover mania.
The size of this bid is not only a matter of public interest but marks the debut in this country of the highly leveraged buy-out, which was developed in the United States, with what most impartial observers would consider to be disastrous results. The Sunday Times article went on:
America's quoted sector has been ravaged by leveraged buyouts in the past few years—something similar is now expected here.
That is why this could be a landmark case. If it proceeds, the floodgates will be opened by similar takeover devices, probably financed from the United States where there is so much more experience of this kind of thing than there is here.
After more than 1,300 leveraged buy-outs in the United States, thousands have lost their jobs, a few have made many millions of dollars and there has been no perceptible improvement in corporate performance or efficiency. A number of studies, including one from the Brookings Institute, which have gone into the consequences of such a development in takeovers in the United States, bear out that contention.
The leveraged buy-out, usually called junk-bond financing in the United States and mezzanine financing in


this country—a term which I have only learnt to get my tongue around in the past few days—is really a process of financial manipulation. The process involves issuing bonds where the ratio of debt to security is very high—in other words, a very large loan is made against a rather small security. A leveraged buy-out almost invariably must be followed by a rapid break-up of the victim company, which is usually a diversified conglomerate, with a strong cash flow and undervalued assets. The predator stands to make exceptional gains from the exercise. It is anticipated that Hoylake could make £1 billion out of breaking up BAT. It has been calculated that some 44 of the FTSE 100 companies could be targets; especially vulnerable are those with strong brand names, the values of which could easily be realised in a dismemberment. I have a number of such firms in my constituency which I will not draw to Sir James Goldsmith's attention by mentioning. It is really just a sophisticated name for asset stripping and one can imagine the turmoil in some of our largest companies as a result. It is likely to stifle any rational planning and development in companies at risk.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I should like to draw a distinction between classical asset stripping and what is proposed for the BAT bid. Classically, asset stripping is when one breaks up the company and sells off the assets, so that the company no longer exists and the assets are dispersed elsewhere. In effect, what is proposed here is a series of demergers, so that the subsidiary companies remain in existence but are better run, more profitable and, therefore, the jobs are more secure.

Mr. Garrett: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's definition, because there was plenty of classical asset stripping in the 1960s, when the companies were not entirely liquidated, but some kind of demerger activity of the kind proposed here was carried on. In the activities of Slater Walker, I believe that was more often the case. Asset stripping usually related to the realisation of real property assets, such as land and buildings. Therefore, it is fair to call this a modern version of asset stripping.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) saw last night's television programme on the career of Mr. Milliken, who is a junk bond guru in the United States, but is now under some suspicion. The hon. Member for Tatton said that there was no suggestion of loss of jobs, but on that television programme a senior executive of Goodyear—which was Sir James Goldsmith's last venture into such an activity—reported that thousands of jobs were lost from that great American industrial company, and Goodyear was lumbered with interest payments of $1 million a day, which had significantly altered the capacity for development of its business.
The predators in such takeovers have no intrinsic interest in the victim company, other than to take a short-term profit from the disposal of its assets. They make no positive or creative contribution to the economy, as United States experience has shown. The arguments that such takeovers shake up sleepy management do not hold water. That is be generally true of takeovers. After all, the DTI's 1988 report on merger policy listed nine separate academic studies which suggested that takeovers generally actually diminish efficiency and profitability.
In the main, the people who benefit from such an exercise are the lawyers, the bankers, brokers, accountants, public relations and advertising practices—and now, I hear, private detectives—who, and I quote The Observer of 16 July,
hover over the scene like vultures over a mediaeval battlefield.
Minorco's bid for Consolidated Goldfields was a quarter the size of the Hoylake bid and generated £50 million in fees for such advisers.
Sir James Goldsmith justified his bid by saying that BAT's companies were being stifled under the bureaucracy of a large conglomerate. He does not know whether they are being stifled or not, but the only companies likely to buy Eagle Star insurance group, Allied Dunbar, Farmers group, Argos, Wiggins Teape and other BAT subsidiaries are conglomerates. There will therefore be no diminution in bureacracy, if bureaucracy is the normal condition of a conglomerate.
There is no evidence that the bid will benefit the economy, BAT's 320,000 workers worldwide or its 32,000 workers in the United Kingdom. Indeed, in any unbundling of BAT, many thousands of workers throughout the country may find their jobs at risk, which was the prime concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford.
Another worrying issue is the bid's effect on capital markets. It could lead to our corporate finance system being awash with poor-quality bonds. The issue is not whether the bonds in this takeover are of higher quality than the junk bonds that are customary in the United States, but the principle of establishing whether such a leveraged buy-out is acceptable. One can be sure that poorer-quality bonds will follow the ones that Sir James Goldsmith and Hoylake issue. Of the bid, the Financial Times said that it was
financed by unquoted IOUs from an off the shelf Bermuda-based shell company.
The Governor of the Bank of England has expressed concern that the development of the leveraged buy-out here could result in
a profusion of unsuccessful financial arrangements.
The bid could introduce massive instability into the British corporate scene. Leverage of the corporate sector debt levels in relation to the capital base has risen steadily in the United States, mainly as a result of the leveraged buy-out boom, so that, at present debt levels, 10 per cent. of United States companies will be acutely vulnerable to a recession on the scale of that in the early 1980s.
There is every sign that the BAT bid will pave the way for a flood of big leveraged deals in Britain, making our companies similarly vulnerable. The effect will be to encourage short-termism—to encourage managers to take a short-term view, cutting back on investment and research and development to deter predators, and, after takeovers, maximising cash flow to service excessive debt levels. Corporate planning in anticipation of 1992, for example, could be made extremely difficult.
In our view, the national interest should require that the onus of proof should be reversed in major takeover bids—a point that we made in Committee debates on the Companies Bill, and which we will continue to make when the Bill returns from the other place. The bid should be shown to be in the national interest before being allowed to proceed. The Tebbit doctrine of making the criteria for


the takeover of companies relate only to competitiveness is not enough, and it is certainly inadequate in bids such as this.
Sir Gordon Borrie, the Director General of Fair Trading, said in December 1986 that takeovers should be required to show benefit to the economy and suggested that reversal of the burden of proof applied to takeovers of a certain size would be a way of tackling the problem of financial markets taking an excessively short-term view. He said:
The decision to buy or sell particular shares at a particular price does not necessarily bring about the most efficient deployment of and development of the assets which these shares represent.
We agree with Sir Gordon Borrie and the Confederation of British Industry that the bid should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, first, because of its size—the CBI says that one bid of this size could buy control of 25 per cent. of Britain's manufacturing exports—secondly, because of the creation of a massive amount of corporate debt and dubious instruments of finance and thirdly, because of the endangering of investment in plant and equipment and research and development in many of our large companies—the short-termism argument.
There are many issues of public and corporate interest in this dangerous development, and in our view the Government should refer the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for mature and careful consideration. As I said, it could be a pacemaking event in corporate finance in this country. It has a number of extremely dangerous implications and it should be considered very carefully, first, by the Government and, secondly, by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission before being allowed to proceed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): We have had a good, wide-ranging debate. Although there may not have been many hon. Members present, what was lacking in quantity was certainly made up for in quality. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) to his duties on the Front Bench and thank my two hon. Friends who spoke so kindly about me. I hope that all they said was meant to be praise and I take it in that spirit. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) for his remarks.
The debate has prefigured many of the arguments that will be conducted by the participants in this matter over the next few weeks. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) on his success in obtaining this debate on the takeover proposal for it raises an important subject. How will our mergers policy deal with the phenomenon of leveraged or largely debt-financed takeovers? That was the prime concern of the hon. Member for Norwich, South and was mentioned by others. I hope to be able to reassure the House that both our mergers policy and legislation are equipped to deal with such takeovers.
The specific case of BAT is important as it is a large employer will plants and offices in many parts of the country. It is naturally apprehensive about possible change. The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford put his constituents' case well. drawing attention to the importance of Argos as an employer in his constituency.
The bid by Hoylake Investments for the BAT group comes under the duty of the director general of Fair Trading. He advises the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on whether particular mergers should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The director general is considering the proposed acquisition of BAT by Hoylake Investments and will consider any offer document that may emerge. There is no formal offer document that we know of yet. The Secretary of State will take his decision whether or not to refer this particular bid to the MMC in due course and in the light of the director general's advice.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will apreciate that it would not be right for me to comment in detail on this particular case, before the director general has advised the Secretary of State. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that, as always, the director general and the Secretary of State will take into account all relevant aspects in the consideration of this proposed acquisition.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Fair Trading Act 1973 provides for a case-by-case scrutiny of mergers. Each merger or merger proposal which qualifies, because for example, the target company involved is larger than £30 million of assets or because the combined market share of the merged companies would exceed 25 per cent., is considered individually by the director general on its merits, in the light of all the circumstances at the time. Only if a merger is referred to the MMC, and the commission concludes that it would be against the public interest, does my right hon. Friend have powers to take action against that particular merger. Then my right hon. Friend can decide whether to block the bid or not.
I recognise that a particular concern in this case has been registered about the proposed financing of the Hoylake Investments' proposal—involving extensive borrowing. It has been widely reported that shareholders in the target company, BAT, will be offered not cash but various forms of loan notes, some of which are not secured and which are referred to as "subordinated debt", or to use the more pejorative United States phrase, "junk bonds". If such a bid were to succeed, it seems clear that the new company would have to service a large amount of debt.
But it is not at all clear that the financing of a takeover largely by debt—or "leveraging" as it is called—is likely to evoke a response from the market which diverges from the public interest more generally. One case in particular comes to mind where the financing of merger proposals was considered to raise public interest issues which deserved further investigation by the MMC. This was the Elders proposed takeover of Allied Lyons. In that case the MMC concluded in its report of September 1986 that the proposal would not operate against the public interest.
It found no evidence that the developments of the Allied Lyons businesses that Elders planned to retain would be prejudiced by financial stringency brought on by high capital gearing and low interest cover. The banks providing Elders' loan facility had expressed confidence in Elders' management, and on the basis of the available information, the commission did not think that Elders would make an imprudent future bid. In the event, Elders did not rebid.
There have, however, been other cases of leveraged bids where a reference has not been considered appropriate because the Secretary of State considered that the market was best placed to decide on the merits or otherwise of the proposal. Three cases that spring to mind are the


Demerger Corporation's bid in 1986 for the Extel Corporation, Valuedale's bid later the same year for Simon Engineering and Barker Dobson's bid for Dee Corporation. In those cases, incidentally, the offers were unsuccessful in the market.
I shall, in this context, quote from the Department of Trade and Industry's blue paper on mergers policy of March last year. It states:
The consequences of highly-leveraged bids have been a source of concern to some commentators, primarily on the grounds that such bids are often mounted on the basis of plans to break up the target company if the bid is successful. In the typical highly-leveraged case, the bidder will usually need to to sell off parts of the company he has acquired in order to meet the debt obligations he has incurred in financing the bid. Some observers see such post-merger divestment as inherently destructive, and apply the pejorative label asset-stripping to it. On the other hand, others have pointed to the possible benefits of leveraging in subjecting the incumbent managements of even the largest company to the possible threat of takeover and to its associated healthy disciplines, from which they might in practice have been immune without the growth of leveraged financing techniques.
Those two arguments have been mentioned today. The paper continued:
The Government's view is one of scepticism as to whether there is normally a divergence between the interests of private decision-makers and the public interest where leverage bids are concerned. Some highly leveraged bids are rejected by shareholders: the market can and does make sensible judgments in rejecting bids where the risks of a high degree of leveraging seem too great. However, where there are profitable opportunities arising from leveraged takeovers followed by break up of the target company, the presumption must be that the profit arises from the assets concerned being put to more efficient and more profitable use than in the original target company, and that this is to the benefit of the economy as a whole. Therefore the Secretary of State will not normally regard high leveraging on its own as a ground for reference. However, he will continue to consider referring such bids when he believes that a high degree of leveraging, combined with other features of the bid, may pose dangers to the public interest.
I have quoted from that document at length because it represents a good statement of the Government's position.
That policy was reflected in the reference of the Goodman Fielder Wattie bid for Ranks Hovis McDougall, which was referred in August 1988 because of concern about the possible effects on competition, especially in the market for bread. In the event, Goodman Fielder Wattie withdrew its bid and the reference was laid aside.
Concerns have also been expressed about the possible implications of this bid for the insurance industry. Of course, I cannot comment on actions that may or may not take place in the United States. But there are implications in this country, as BAT has a significant financial services group comprising Eagle Star, Allied Dunbar and Farmers.
I reassure the House that the legal position, under section 61 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982, is that anyone seeking to become a controller of an insurance company must give the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry prior notice of his intention to do so, and the Secretary of State will then consider whether he is a fit and proper person.
I should also emphasise that were this bid to be successful and were there to be any subsequent transactions resulting from it, each would be considered by the Director General of Fair Trading and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the normal way—that is, individually, on its own merits.
I conclude by emphasising that the main, though not exclusive, consideration in determining whether mergers should be referred to the MMC should be their potential effect on competition in the United Kingdom. The Government's policy enables the great majority of proposed mergers and acquisitions which do not pose a threat to competition to be decided by the market, in the way recommended by my hon. Friends, without intervention from official agencies. The Government believe that there are considerable benefits in allowing freedom for change in corporate ownership and control through mergers and acquisitions. Generally, the market will be a better arbiter than Government of the prospects for the proposed transactions, and will ensure better use of assets, for the benefit of their owners and the economy as a whole. The Government should intervene only where the interests of the decision makers in the market are likely to run counter to the public interest.
The Government take the view that decisions about changes in the ownership or management of a company are generally best taken by the shareholders themselves, as the Government believe that the people best placed to make a judgment of commercial prospects are those whose money is at stake. It is not the role of the Government or statutory agencies to second guess commercial judgments. There may be a case for the public authorities to intervene in particular circumstances, typically where there are grounds for believing that the interests of private decision makers run counter to the public interest. The classic example of this divergence is where a merger confers excessive market power on the new enterprise, so that it offers the prospect of profits to the owners, but threatens to damage the public interest, for example by leading to distortion of the market and exploitation of the customer.
The current procedures for examining qualifying mergers provide a good framework within which to investigate—if necessary by a reference to the MMC—and to control mergers raising public interest issues. The same applies to leveraged offers. Where a high leveraged offer combined with other features might pose dangers to the public interest, we will also, having received the advice of the Director-General of Fair Trading, consider making a reference to the MMC.

Orders of the Day — A27 (Bypass)

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) on his appointment at the Department of Transport.
Transport is an area with an enormous number of major political questions. The issue of the future route of the A27, together with the expansion of Worthing hospital, are the major issues confronting my constituents at present. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not elaborate on my congratulations because I stress that the time available to us is very short and I shall understand if he is not able to give a full reply. I thank my hon. Friend for sitting through the long watches of the night, as we have together, while waiting for this debate—[Interruption.] On the contrary, my hon. Friend has been here as long as I have—and I have been here all night.
This issue has a long history. Some 10 or 12 years ago, a study was carried out—inadequately in my view—which suggested four routes for the A27, none of which was a bypass. A preferred route was announced and a lot of property was bought up. I am happy to say that subsequently I was successful in persuading the Minister to drop that idea and the route was abandoned and the houses sold off.
Meanwhile, the traffic has been building up, and back in 1985 the Government decided that a further study should be carried out by Howard Humphries. It resulted in the recommendation of an inner route which, as the posters in my constituency make absolutely clear, is a throughpass not a bypass. I believe profoundly that Worthing should have a real bypass which avoids the town completely.
Indeed, Government policy is that through traffic should be taken away from towns. All the other towns and villages along the south coast are to have real bypasses and it is right that Worthing should have one, too. The strength of public feeling on the matter has been manifested in public meetings and massive petitions of about 24,000 signatures against the route that was selected by the Minister last week, in comparison with one of just over 1,200 in favour of the route selected by the Government. We have had a number of public meetings which, by modern standards, were enormous, with the vast majority of the views expressed being against the preferred route and in favour of a real bypass. I do not think that the assessment that the Government published last week reflecting the Howard Humphries report reflects the strength of public feeling in favour of a bypass and against the preferred route.
My hon. Friend's predecessor was kind enough to receive a deputation, led by the mayor, which spelt out the argument in considerable detail. The borough council thought it right to employ its own consultants, called Atkins, but no relation, I think, to my hon. Friend the Minister, and they drew attention to the serious deficiencies in the Howard Humphries report. The assumption about the speed at which lorries would travel if a bypass were built was far lower than is my experience. Such an assumption tends to bias the decision in favour of the inner route rather than a real bypass. We also believe that the disruption that could be caused to public services

such as water, gas and electricity were grossly underestimated. In addition, we have considerable doubts about the traffic forecasts.
I regret the preferred route that has been announced. My hon. Friend's predecessor was influenced considerably by the argument that, if he selected the inner route, he would immediately be able to compensate those who were blighted, whereas if he selected the bypass, where there are no properties, those in the inner route would not be formally blighted——

Ms. Joan Ruddock: rose——

Mr. Higgins: No, I am not giving way. I have no time at all. It is not a matter for the Opposition Front Bench.
With regard to the view that was taken by my hon. Friend's predecessor——

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that I am a member of the Select Committee on Procedure. I am somewhat puzzled that, in a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, when many issues are discussed briefly and at some speed throughout the night, and some hon. Members stay throughout the night to ensure that a balanced view is put, when an Opposition view is offered in truncated form, and when a Minister has refused to allow time, such a brief intervention is not allowed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It is for the right hon. Gentleman whose debate it is to decide whether to give way. I must add that this will be a very short debate.

Mr. Higgins: It is indeed a very short debate. This is traditionally an opportunity for Back Benchers to have their grievances redressed and argued before money is provided to the Government. It is not an Opposition Supply Day.
This is a constituency matter. The Government ought to go ahead with a careful study which will reappraise the Howard Humphries report. It has agreed to reconsider the figures in the light of criticism made by Atkins, and has been prepared to set up a public inquiry. I welcome both.
It is not sufficient, however, simply to revise the traffic forecasts, which have been severely criticised recently by the Public Accounts Committee, which said that the figures have tended to be underestimated and consequently less favourable to a bypass than they now will be. It is also important that a survey of traffic flows should be carried out.
I hope that my hon. Friend will carry out the survey of traffic on the basis of up to date data. The present figures are not up-to-date. It is clear that the bypass would remove traffic going from west to east and east to west, but it would also have a significant effect on traffic going from the north to the east, the east to the north, the north to the west and the west to the north. If the bypass were built, all that traffic would be removed from Findon valley, which is a built-up area in my constituency. If, however, the preferred route is confirmed—I strongly hope that it will not be—traffic will still come through Findon valley, and I believe that that means that the road will have to be made a dual carriageway. If that is so, those costs ought to be included in an appraisal of the economic value of the bypass on the one side and the so-called preferred route on the other. I hope very much that my hon. Friend will examine the figures.
Another point of grave concern has been the delay. My constituents whose homes have been threatened do not know at what stage a decision will be reached. They have had a year of serious uncertainty, and clearly it will be some time before the revised figures can be produced and the public inquiry can take place.
I hope that my hon. Friend will make clear the position on blight, and will, if necessary, publish—in addition to the existing leaflets—a summary of where people stand.My impression is that, while those immediately on the route can now apply for a blight notice, those on either side—even if they are most seriously affected—have no prospect of compensation until 12 months after the final decision is made. That, in my view, is quite unfair, not only in this context but in the context of the Channel tunnel and other major developments. Those near to road or rail developments, as opposed to those on the exact route, must receive adequate compensation for the considerable anxiety and personal loss that they suffer. I feel strongly that the present compensation arrangements are inadequate.
Having said that, I welcome the fact that the Government have agreed to reappraise the figures. I hope that they will pay particular attention to the points that I have mentioned, including the additional cost of junctions that would be incurred if the inner route were selected—for example, at Salvington hill. I am, however, pleased that there is to be a public inquiry, which would not have happened 10 years ago. There should be a level playing field in regard to appraisal, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to ensure that that happens so that the inner route and the bypass route can be appraised.
The latest document issued by the Department says that figures will also be produced for a bypass route through the Findon gap, which is south of Cissbury Ring. I think that that would have serious disadvantages, not least because of the danger that building would go on up to that line. If the line is north of Cissbury Ring—which I believe is the alternative that we ought to appraise—we shall find that the building is effectively isolated by the existence of Cissbury Ring at that point. We need a clear choice between the route that has been announced as the preferred route and a real bypass, avoiding the town completely, through the Findon gap and north of Cissbury Ring.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Robert Atkins): I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) for his kind remarks at the beginning of what has—inevitably and rightly—been essentially a matter affecting his constituency. Not only has my right hon. Friend a distinguished position in the House, but he is chairman of our Back-Bench committee on transport matters.
I hope that Opposition Members will not think me discourteous if I say that time has prevented too many interventions: the restrictions placed on me do not give me such time to answer the debate.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has properly mentioned the lack of time remaining for the debate. May I point out the strange

nature of such an exchange? It was in fact, only through the courtesy of Opposition Members who truncated the previous debate that this subject was allowed to be discussed at all. There have, in fact, been three discourtesies, and I should like to place that on record.

Mr. Atkins: It was my understanding that this was very much a constituency matter, and I shall certainly read with care what my right hon. Friend has said on behalf of his constituents.

Ms. Ruddock: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. Will he tell the House whether the proposal for the bypass has the support of the county council? What environmental damage does he think that the bypass might do to the South Downs?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady will know as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing that inevitably in all these matters, as I have discovered in the short time that I have been in this post, there are almost as many people in favour of a proposal as there are against. The persuasive powers of my right hon. Friend are such that I shall certainly look at all the submissions, whether from the hon. Lady, with whom I look forward to working, or from my right hon. Friend. We can reassure the people of Worthing who may or may not be affected by the proposals that my predecessor enunciated that their views will be looked at as carefully as possible.

It being Eight o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,
That Mr. Norman Lamont be discharged from the Select Commit tee on Public Accounts and Mr. Peter Lillcy be added to the Committee—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

TELEVISING OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That Mr. Secretary Wakeham nd Mr. David Hunt be discharged from the Select Committee on the Televising of Proceedings of the House and Sir Geoffrey Howe and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a fundamental feature of our parliamentary proceedings that contol of money is crucial to the way in which power is exercised. The basis of our proceedings is that money should not be provided to Government from the Consolidated Fund until hon. Members have had the opportunity to express their grievances. That means that Ministers have to reply.
The Consolidated Fund debate is essentially one for Back Benchers to have an opportunity to raise matters of particular concern to their constituents. There is always a considerable constraint on time, and many hon. Members have not been fortunate enough to take part in the debate. Many hon. Members have been here throughout the night. I certainly have. It is quite wrong for points of order to be made which curtail debate even more.
While it is, of course, appropriate that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen should intervene, this is not an Opposition day. As I have said, it is a day on which Back Benchers may address grievances to the Government and on which Ministers reply. In his point of order, the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said that he is on


the Procedure Committee. I chaired the Procedure Committee which made the arrangements whereby hon. Members are cut off at this hour. That was a fairly important reform and gives Back Benchers a chance to air their grievances.
Such an intervention was inappropriate. No one wishes to inhibit Front-Bench spokesmen, and I would be happy on any other occasion to give way to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). I certainly did not wish to be discourteous to her, but I had a matter of major constituency interest to put forward and an incredibly limited time in which to deploy complicated arguments. I hope that she will understand why I did not give way.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I think that it would be wise to leave the matter there.

Orders of the Day — Street Lighting

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Ms. Joan Walley: At the outset, I should like to——

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman is cutting into the time of his hon. Friend. I hope that he will not do that.

Mr. Cohen: I hope that we are not adjourning the Consolidated Fund debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. The Question has been put that the House do now adjourn. That means that he is cutting into the time of his hon. Friend. I hope that he will not do that.

Mr. Cohen: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will oppose that motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot do that.

Ms. Walley: Pedestrian safety and street lighting requires urgent debate and I am grateful for the chance to raise this important matter.
The Government have been in office for 10 years and pedestrians in various parts of the country do not feel safe outside their homes. In particular, they do not feel safe on busy roads where' there is no easily accessible and safe place to cross the road. Very often, they do not feel safe in residential streets, particularly those built 30 or 40 years ago, which do not qualify for general improvement area status, and where the street lights are almost obsolete, and incapable of providing the lighting that is neded in 1989.
This is not just a constituency but a national matter, which affects mostly women, the elderly, the disabled and children. All are increasingly vulnerable when they go out after dark and find it difficult to cross the road because of lack of pedestrian crossings or of adequate in street lighting. As a result, the quality of life, which matters greatly to all, has suffered. Women do not even feel safe when collecting their children from nursery school after dark. They are afraid of attack. Elderly people are worried because although they know that the condition of the pavements is bad, with cracks and holes, they cannot see them if there is no light.
As citizens, we should be outraged when somebody almost has to be killed before a pedestrian crossing is provided on a busy street. We have to put up with all sorts of similar problems, and I do not want our elderly parents to have to live like that, or our children to be brought up in such an environment. I shall concentrate on the way in which public expenditure has become the victim of tunnel vision, instead of being aimed at meeting such needs, which were laid out in a recent report by the National Consumer Council.
How does this affect my constituency? I shall refer to the many petitions that I have received in the past year. The number of them made it essential that I took up the matter with the city council, Staffordshire county council


and the previous Minister with responsibility for district lighting. What went wrong? Why are so many people in my constituency concerned? What do we need to do, and who should do it? How can we ensure that something gets done? As the debate comes at the end of a long Session, I hope that it will enable us to shed some light on the matter. I hope that the Minister will use the recess to think about this, and that he will come back with some positive ideas for action to improve matters.
In many parts of my constituency there is not much light in the streets. For example, constituents in Duddell road presented me with a petition, shortly followed by one from people who live in Ashman street, who realised that the street lighting there was as bad as that in Duddell road. In Minder grove, in Sneyd green, residents feel that their street lighting is outdated. An estate in the Stanfields area of Burslem Park asked for help, and I took up the matter with the Midlands electricity board. It told me that the street lighting was out of date, so it was difficult to have decent lighting there. I have a series of letters, including one from the Hollywall estates residents organisation, which said:
We decided to ask for improvement in the quality of street lighting. A representative of the City Engineers Department, a Mr. P. Stephens, came to tell us how difficult it was going to be to get the work done on improvements, but even he admitted that the standard of street lighting on Hollywall Estate is `Abysmal!'. The aim was, and still is to make the people of the estate, particularly the elderly, feel safe to go out from behind their locked doors after dark. We have started a Neighbourhood Watch and we hoped that this in conjunction with improved street lighting would help achieve our aim. We do not have a large vandalism problem, yet. We would like to prevent this.
Finally, I received a petition from residents on the Burslem Park estate. They want to have their lighting improved and they want lighting to be provided in many back alleyways and unadopted roads on the estate.
I took up these matters with the city council, the county council and the Minister who then had responsibility for these matters. Late one midsummer night this year—it had just about become dark at midnight but it was a night of pouring rain—I walked the streets of my constituency with members of the parliamentary lighting group, local residents, councillors and the city engineer. It was hoped
that with the presence of the lighting group and representatives from Philips we would have an independent assessment of what needed to be done to improve the street lights in residential areas. It is to main trunk roads that the majority of Government moneys are directed through the county councils and the highways departments.
We took a close look at all the problems and it was explained to me by the chairman of the city council highways committee, Councillor Gordon Tuck, that the responsibility rests with the county council because Stoke-on-Trent is not a highway authority in its own right. The county council explained to me that it could not do anything because over the past two years its capital budget has been reduced by 40 per cent. The Minister will know that the transport supplementary grant is so organised that 95 per cent. of the money is spent on designated, named, major traffic schemes. The small-scale expenditure that I am talking about is not that sort of designated expenditure, and it would seem that there is no chance that

the money will be made available. I learnt from the county council that £17,000 has been made available for street lighting for the entire county in the past year.
When the time comes for the Minister to reply, I am sure that he will leap to his feet—I know that he visited Stoke-on-Trent in a previous incarnation—to tell us that the matter has nothing to do with him and that another Department should realise what needs to be done. But if a local authority is not a highway authority in its own right, it has no control over the priority that is attached to street lighting. If a local authority has not been designated by the Department of the Environment as an urban programme area, as is the case with Stoke-on-Trent, funds that might be available to similar parts of the country are not available to spend on street lighting.
Stoke has no programme area status, and has been denied access to another budget that could have helped us to improve street lighting. Government cuts to local councils have left them without money to invest in essential infrastructure on the scale that is required and which I and others have identified in Stoke-on-Trent.
We could ask the Home Office whether it could help. A major part of the debate relates to crime prevention. I am sure that the Government will be aware of an important report by Kate Painter on the Edmonton project, which was funded by the Thorn lighting division. That project shows that, without doubt, improved street lighting can dramatically, immediately and at low cost reduce specific crime and—this is equally important—the fear of crime within a locality.
I asked the county council whether money could be made available through the police budget to improve street lighting. Costings show that for every £500 spent on improved street lighting, the cost of crime is reduced by about £2,000 annually.
If the existing obsolete street lighting is replaced there will be at least two further benefits. Photographs taken all over my constituency prove that the existing standards have rotted, and there is a clear danger that they could fall and hit people. Also, if the outdated technology is improved, huge energy savings will be made. Is there any possibility that the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department of Energy will consider the matter in terms of the energy savings that could result from a short-term investment?
I return to my constituency, and to the councillors, city engineer, and crime prevention officer who walked the streets of Tunstall, Burslem and Smallthorne with me in the pouring rain on a dark night in the hope of bringing the problem of street lighting in those places to the Government's attention.
It would cost approximately £500,000 per annum to replace the city's 22,000 street lights every 25 to 30 years. I have already explained that only £17,000 was available last year for the county's entire lighting needs. A large proportion of street lighting on Stoke-on-Trent's 361 unclassified roads is now at the end of its useful life and is deteriorating rapidly. Current lighting levels in those areas fall well below even the minimum recommended by the British Standards Institution, represented by the figure of 1·0. The average standard achieved in Stoke-on-Trent is only 0·6, which gives some idea of the extent of the problem.
It is a question of the quality of life, but so far no policy has been formulated for directing money at lighting needs. Perhaps it would be possible to increase the transport


supplementary grant. The Cabinet is currently dispensing the public expenditure allocations for next year. Perhaps there could be greater flexibility, so that 95 per cent. of the money available will not have to be spent on major, named schemes, with very little left for smaller projects.
What are the Government doing to co-ordinate the activities of the different but relevant Departments? I should like to see established a rolling programme of street lighting improvement and replacement in my constituency and elsewhere in the country. I hope that, as we near the last day of the Session, the Government will announce the introduction of a mechanism to deal with the problems that I have described, so that in the future my constituents can leave their homes after dark and still feel safe—which is the most important thing of all.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, (Ms. Walley) on the way in which she has raised, with her own inimitable charm, the anxieties of her constituents expressed by way of petition and letter. It was right and proper that she should do so in some detail.
Being the charitable lady that I know her to be, she will realise that I am not yet in a position to speak with great authority. The forthcoming holiday will be the time when I work my way through a great deal of the documentation which will include matters relating to pedestrian safety and lighting which she has drawn to the attention of the House.
The hon. Lady will know that in a former incarnation within the Department of Trade and Industry, I was made fully aware of the activities of the parliamentary lighting group. Indeed, I addressed it on one auspicious evening. As a result of those responsibilities, I learned about the manufacturing problems arising from the lighting of pedestrian areas and streets.
I hope that the hon. Lady will understand if I say that I shall read what she has had to say and what I have heard myself so that I shall be able to deal with the details when we return after a much-needed recess.
Let me briefly touch upon what I understand to be the case for pedestrian safety, particularly in the context of lighting, which has been left to me by my predecessor and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department.
The hon. Lady may or may not know that a leaflet on pedestrian safety was published not too long ago. It contained new proposals for making walking safer. I was fascinated to learn that the hon. Lady trekked the streets of her constituency in the pouring rain one summer evening. We all get involved in such activities in one way or another. She may have recognised then, if she had not already done so in the course of her activities, that the safety of pedestrians, whether in daylight or at night, is a matter for the Department of Transport.
The document deals with five areas—education and training; road engineering; our conspicuity campaign to encourage greater use of fluorescent and reflective clothing; the responsibilities of pedestrians as well as those in the local authority who look after their safety, and, above all, research, one of the areas in which I was slightly involved in the Department of Trade and Industry.
The leaflet has been well received by many people, certainly by all those involved in such matters. As the hon. Lady says, street lighting is important to road safety. The number of night-time casualty accidents is 30 per cent. Of

the total number of accidents, whereas night-time traffic flows amount to about 25 per cent. of the total traffic. It is clear from those statistics that the accident rate is higher at night, a matter to which the hon. Lady drew the attention of the House. Moreover, night-time accidents in general are more severe, with a higher proportion of casualties killed or seriously injured.
Road lighting reduces night-time accidents by some 30 per cent. Most urban roads are lit. I have visited Stoke-on-Trent three times, but I am not familiar with all the roads there. However, I suspect that most will be lighted to a greater or lesser extent. Even so, about 95 per cent. of pedestrian casualties and 80 per cent. of pedestrian fatalities occur on roads in built-up areas.
In 1987, the latest year for which we have figures, 28 per cent. of pedestrian casualties and 45 per cent. of pedestrian deaths occurred during night time. The proportion of pedestrians killed or seriously injured is higher at night than in daylight—about 38 per cent. at night, compared with 28 per cent. in daylight.
Accidents at or within 50 m of pedestrian crossings are more frequent at night, but there are few such accidents on unlit streets. The Department's guidance on lighting at crossings includes advice on supplementary lighting on the footways in the vicinity of a crossing. Floodlighting of crossings leads to poorer relative illumination of the surrounding roadway, where more pedestrians are injured than on the crossing itself.
As the hon. Lady drew to the attention of the House, street lighting in urban areas has three benefits. There are the road safety and general pedestrian amenity aspects, as well as the deterrence of crime and, as the hon. Lady rightly said, the improved safety of women at night.
The hon. Lady asked about the involvement of a variety of Departments and I shall get around to answering her questions in due course. The Home Office and the Departments of Transport, of Trade and Industry and of the Environment deal with safety as it relates to street lighting and the general pedestrian amenity.
In England local authority expenditure on lighting has remained around 14 or 15 per cent. of their total road current expenditure over the past five years—although, as the hon. Lady said, in Staffordshire it fell from 16 per cent. to 13 per cent. in that same period. During the past five years local authorities have not always spent all the money allocated for road expenditure. The hon. Lady will know better than I do what Staffordshire spends and she will also appreciate that these are matters for the authority.
I cannot really comment on capital allocations overall. because those are matters for the Department of the Environment, and it is down to each county authority or metropolitan borough to decide how to allocate its expenditure. I can only suggest that if the hon. Lady speaks to her local authority with the same persuasive charm with which she has addressed the House its representatives will recognise the needs of her constituents in Burslem and other places where lighting is weak.
Road lighting is designed so that pedestrians will appear as a dark outline shape against a bright road surface. It provides some illumination of adjacent footways to aid pedestrians and forewarn drivers. Lighting should be in operation from about 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise. The practice adopted by some local authorities of extinguishing some lighting during periods of very low traffic flow is detrimental to the interests of emergency services, to public security and


especially to pedestrians, as well as incurring a loss of accident savings. Moreover, the energy saved is relatively small in terms of costs. Such a practice is not generally helpful to the safety of pedestrians in areas that need lighting.
Of the 108 English local highway authorities, only 71 included bids for street lighting expenditure in their transport policies and programmes submissions for 1989–90. Some of the planned work is likely to have been for the benefit of residential areas, although few authorities specified that. The hon. Lady asked what expenditure would be in the current public expenditure round. I am not in a position to judge at this stage. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will doubtless be examining all matters relating to that in considerable detail. Time will tell, although, on a brief acquaintance with the Department for which I am now privileged to speak, it appears that we have had a very large allocation in our budget, and we hope that the transport community will benefit across the board.
The hon. Lady referred to other Departments. She may or may not be aware that the Home Office is sponsoring

research into the link between low lighting and crime. So far, there is no research evidence to show that road lighting reduces crime rates, although common sense suggests that it must. Some research shows that better lighting significantly reduces the fear of crime. Of course people will be happier if they go out and can feel secure because they can see their way. We all know the problems that arise with dark alley ways, particularly on housing estates, and with underpasses. The Home Office is addressing itself to precisely those matters.
All in all, I am delighted that the hon. Lady has drawn my attention to these important matters, which I shall have to consider in detail. As I acquaint myself with the subject during the next few weeks I shall reflect on the hon. Lady's questions and ensure that I ask similar questions of my officials, to see whether we can find solutions that will be of benefit to pedestrians generally and especially to those constituents to whom the hon. Lady referred in the part of her constituency that had difficulties. I hope that next time we meet across a crowded Chamber, we shall be able to discuss the matter in more detail.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eight o'clock.